Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

United States Secretary for Transportation

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Secretary for Transportation of the United States of America.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): We met in Washington on 11 January. We discussed a variety of topics, including the prospects for liberalising services between the United Kingdom and United States of America and arrangements for new United States airline services to regional airports. Those discussions are now being carried forward.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any air service agreements with the United States will be based on reciprocity, particularly with regard to cabotage, and that they will be negotiated by Britain on a bilateral basis rather than in concert with our European partners? We have much more at stake than other EEC members. To negotiate with them might lead to the building up of a fortress Europe mentality, which would be very much to Britain's disadvantage in its relationship with the United States.

Mr. Parkinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the package of measures that we agree between us is fair to both sides. The Commission has its work cut out to make progress on liberalisation within the Community and is certainly not ready to take on the duties of negotiating our bilateral international agreements. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend on both counts.

Mr. Prescott: At that meeting, did the Secretary of State discuss with Mr. Skinner the information that came to light in the presidential investigation into the Lockerbie tragedy—that 80 per cent. of the American embassy people who were to fly on that plane cancelled on receipt of the warning about that crash? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is another good reason why he should reopen the inquiry into the Lockerbie tragedy, as it causes grave offence for him to co-operate with the American authorities while refusing to conduct such an inquiry in Britain?

Mr. Parkinson: I did not discuss the information about the United States personnel, although I discussed with Mr. Skinner the implications of Lockerbie for aviation security. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the two Governments have been co-operating to promote international agreement on a range of matters. We are still investigating Lockerbie—the investigations by the police and the air accident investigation branch continue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made it clear that there will be a fatal accident inquiry and he is already making those arrangements. There is no question of that terrible disaster not being fully investigated.

Road Improvement

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is being allocated in transport supplementary grant to local authorities in 1990–91 for road improvement programmes.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): Government grants of £233 million have been made available to local councils this year—a 15 per cent.


increase on last year—further proof, if it were needed, of the Government's real commitment to improving local roads.

Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent news. Has his Department had time to consider the report by Sir John Wolfe-Barry and Partners, dated 24 May 1924, on the construction of a bridge between east and west Cowes? I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to earn 66 standing ovations on the Isle of Wight, one for every year since that report, as well as a free holiday on the Isle of Wight, for joining east and west and announcing that he will fund the river bridge over the Medina.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend may have been around when the article was published, but I most certainly was not. None the less, his point is not lost on me or on my Department. The case for the Medina bridge is strong. As my hon. Friend will understand, I cannot commit myself at the moment to announcing whether transport supplementary grant can be made available, but this is obviously a good candidate. Clearly, were I able to provide that grant, a free holiday would be an attraction, but not the most persuasive one.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that many bridges over disused railways are in a very bad state of repair? In the programme of moneys that he has in mind to allocate to the local authorities, are there any moneys for the repair of the bridges, as there is no doubt that they are in a dangerous state?

Mr. Atkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made an adjustment this year to enable local authorities to ring-fence the resources that were previously available to them under the rate support grant and which are now available under our own grant, to enable them to repair their local bridges. The local authorities have told me that they require more money, and we are considering that at the moment, but the Department's programme of repair of its own bridges on trunk roads, motorways and so on, is progressing fast and satisfactorily.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who have had to listen over the years to the endless arguments about the Winchester bypass recognised the dilemma in which the Secretary of State found himself, and that most people realised that he had no choice whatever but to reach the decision that he reached? The decision that the Secretary of State has taken to return the existing road to greenery will do a great deal to allay the understandable concern about the environment, and most reasonable people accept what the Government have decided to do.

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are grateful for my hon. Friend's judgment, bearing in mind his known interests in matters that are not always road based. I think that it is fair to say that a number of us involved in making the decision resent strongly the suggestion that, because that difficult decision was faced and taken, those at the Department of the Environment and at the Department of Transport are somehow less aware of the environmental considerations that are so important to many of us. My hon. Friend knows the area well and his support for the road on behalf of his constituents is greatly appreciated.

London Assessment Studies

Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has now received to the London assessment studies consultation; and what was their nature.

Mr. Parkinson: Several thousand responses were received on the London assessment consultation and they are now being analysed.

Miss Hoey: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the vast majority of responses that he received from local authorities, businesses and property developers oppose the road-building aspects of the road assessment studies and call for more money to be spent on public transport? Will he now listen to what people are saying and, in particular, to the thousands of people in my area who are trying to save Clapham common from devastation?

Mr. Parkinson: Assessment of the representations is still going on and it would be unfair to suggest that we can summarise them in a word or two. Certainly, some of the major road-building proposals are very controversial but in other cases people accept the need for adjustments and improvements. I should also point out to the hon. Lady—I am glad that she underlined it her remarks—that the assessment studies contain quite a large number of public transport options and that the Government are already committed to the biggest ever investment programme for Network SouthEast and London Underground.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend note that during the consultation period I received an unprecedented number of letters—some 1,500 individual letters—from constituents about proposals for the south circular road? The vast majority of my correspondents do not wish large-scale road development to take place; they seek minor improvements at junctions and traffic management schemes. They would also endorse the proposals that I know my right hon. Friend and his Department are to put forward to improve the public transport system—in particular, the extension of the Underground route to the south-east.

Mr. Parkinson: On this occasion, as on others, my hon. Friend accurately assesses the mood of his constituents and represents it to the House. I thank him for his acknowledgement that a huge programme of investment to increase capacity on the Underground, to develop new lines and to extend and modernise existing lines is now under way and is being carried through.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that many of his public pronouncements have emphasised the importance of environmental factors when new roads are being built? Will he now reassess the decision—either of his Department or of the former Secretary of State for the Environment—not to put a road tunnel, as the inspector recommended, under Oxleas wood? Does he realise that the Government's failure to do that makes their claims to be green completely specious?

Mr. Parkinson: It is a little wild of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government's reputation depends on a single decision, with which he does not agree, which affects his constituents. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the


matter is being reconsidered and an inquiry is being reopened. We shall have to wait and see what recommendations are made.

Mr. Tracey: In his deliberations, will my right hon. Friend be clear about the fact that the London boroughs, and in particular the inner London boroughs, now place a much higher priority on environmental protection than on road building? Will he do all that he can to divert passengers to public transport and will he replenish the investment on public transport, which fell so radically under the Greater London council?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government must not underestimate the contribution that public transport can make in London. If we consider the investment programme, which is approximately four times what which we inherited from the Labour-controlled GLC five years ago, and also the £1,200 million that is to be invested in Network SouthEast, it is clear that we act while others talk and moan. We are aware of the need to improve public transport. However, we also recognise that many millions of people in London expect to use their motor cars and we are trying to ensure that that opportunity is open to them.

Marchioness

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received the report from the chief inspector of marine accidents about the Marchioness accident; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The chief inspector of marine accidents will submit the final report on the Marchioness accident to my right hon. Friend when the parties specified in the marine accident regulations have had a chance to comment on his findings. That process of consultation began last week and may take up to two months.

Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. I wonder whether I may refer to the Secretary of State through him. Fifty-one people lost their lives in that tragic accident and there was tremendous trauma for their dependants and relatives. Will the Secretary of State listen to the request of the dependants and relatives that there should be a full public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster as there was into the Zeebrugge disaster? If the Minister cannot give the House that assurance today, will he at least assure us that the Government have not set their mind against such an inquiry?

Mr. McLoughlin: It is open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask for a formal investigation at any stage. However, we are satisfied that the extremely thorough nature of the inquiry and report will be based on the evidence taken in the investigation. We do not want to postpone the publication of the report.

Mr. Hanley: May I ask my hon. Friend for clarification of what he has just said? Is it true that if a full public inquiry is entered into, the publication of the report on that tragic accident will be delayed and the inspector's recommendations might also be delayed? We all want justice for those who were killed and for their families. However, to delay safety on the river any longer would be a disaster as well.

Mr. McLoughlin: The marine accident investigation branch brought forward interim measures that were adopted very quickly after the accident. However, my hon. Friend is right. If a public inquiry were ordered, we should not be able to publish the report. I ask hon. Members to be patient and to wait for the publication of the report. When it is published, they will find that it is a useful and thorough document. That would be in everyone's interests.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I also press the Minister to be clear? Are the Government saying that they have not yet formally ruled out a public inquiry, because press reports state that they have? Will the Minister confirm the earliest date by which the report will be published? I understand that there may be two months' consultation, but what is the earliest date when the report will be published? Just as important, will he and his Department comment on the practice whereby there is the most reluctant payment of compensation to the victims and so far no payment whatever to the bereaved? Does the Minister's Department support that? If not, can he do something to change that system?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's three points. As I said in my initial answer, the consultation period with those who are specified in the regulations started last week. We hope to have the report published within seven weeks at the maximum. I confirm that, if something serious comes forward, it will still be open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set up a public inquiry.
I should not like to comment on claims against insurance companies at the moment, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the time of the disaster, we made a substantial contribution to the disaster fund.

Goods Vehicles

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning mandatory reversing warning devices for all goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: Ministers received five letters on this subject in 1989, and one letter of complaint about noise nuisance from reversing alarms. We have received no representations in 1990. As my hon. Friend will be aware, mandatory fitting of alarms would require agreement from the EEC.

Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Is he as concerned as I am about the number of accidents involving vehicles without reversing devices? Each year, 2,000 accidents are a direct result of pedestrians coming into contact with vehicles that have not been fitted with such bleepers. Is my hon. Friend particularly concerned about schoolchildren, as lorries without reversing alarms may enter school grounds?

Mr. Atkins: Of course, I am worried about anything that may cause an accident or death. Therefore, I shall take action if I believe it to be necessary. The records demonstrate that, over the past 10 years, there have been about 50 fatal accidents involving vehicles without reversing alarms. That is a small proportion, but it is clearly too high.
My hon. Friend understands the situation pretty well. He will know that I must do my best to encourage drivers of vehicles to ensure that they take extra care as befits their standard of driving and the highway code and also that they take necessary care when making manoeuvres associated with reversing vehicles on streets.

Transport, South-East Essex

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the current transport facilities in south-east Essex.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): A total of 13 schemes are planned for the upgrading of the A13 at an estimated cost of well over £200 million. I am expecting proposals from British Rail for a £300 million package of improvements on the Fenchurch Street line, including new rolling stock.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that south-east Essex has the largest influx of population in the country and that the railway lines and the A13, which he mentioned, are some of the worst in the country? At present, commuters on the Fenchurch Street line—my secretary among them—take three hours to do the journey from Southend to London. Also, the A13 services Tilbury dock, Shell Haven, the Mobil depot, Dagenham Ford, some of the biggest gravel workings in the country, and all the rubbish that is dumped from London. It is a dual carriageway for much its length. Congestion is simply terrible. It is not good enough to wait until the late 1990s.

Mr. Portillo: I know something about the frustration that is suffered by my hon. Friend's constituents, not least because she has written to me about it previously. She has been a great champion of her constituents' transport needs and anxieties. She will have heard me say that there is a package of £500 million investment for the road and the railway. That is a substantial figure. I hope that it will bring great relief. Taking the eastern region as a whole, we have added £1·9 billion in the recent White Paper on road spending. I am sure that that will go a long way towards helping her.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State for Transport denied that he was the strategic transport authority for the south-east? British Rail has also denied that that is its function. Who is looking after the strategic transport planning of the south-east? As the Government have walked away from the problem, is it any wonder that there is so much transport chaos, which the Minister, his colleagues and everybody in the south-east must know about? When will the Government take responsibility for looking after transport as a whole in the south-east?

Mr. Portillo: We took over responsibility for part of the transport network from the Greater London council, of which the hon. Gentleman used to be chairman. Since then we have doubled the investment on London Underground, and over the next three years we shall double the investment again. That investment will then be four times higher than it was under the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship. We take responsibility for that part of the network. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that there is an increase of £1·9 billion in spending on the

programme for building trunk roads, for which we are also responsible. He will have also have heard me say that there is major investment in Network SouthEast. That is being made possible by the greater efficiency of the railways, which again has come about under the Government.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend accept my full endorsement of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), not merely on the Fenchurch Street line, which is still the Cinderella of much of British Rail in London, but on the A13? It is now almost 15 years since the proposal was first made to take it over the marshes. We have not yet seen the first sign of work commencing. The A13 is a major trunk road from the ports to central London and round the M25. It is critically important that we give it higher proprity.

Mr. Portillo: I agree with my hon. Friend that the A13 is of critical and strategic importance. He will know that the development of docklands has given an extra impetus to the need to get on with developing the A13. He will also know that I have a personal responsibility as chairman of the docklands transport steering group to make sure that the works are carried forward in a timely fashion. They are complex schemes, many of which have important implications, both for the environment and for residents. The necessary processes must be gone through.

British Rail

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss matters of safety.

Mr. Parkinson: There are regular meetings between myself and the chairman to discuss matters of mutual interest. Safety can be and is discussed whenever appropriate.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a regular traveller through King's Cross, I share with other passengers great anxiety that, three months after the publication of the Hidden report, it still appears that British Rail is not sure how much it will cost to implement its recommendations? It has put only £200 million into its corporate plan for safety. According to all reports, it will cost much more than that to implement the recommendations of the report. Will he give the House and passengers a guarantee today that safety will be the priority of the Government and of British Rail and that he will make sure that British Rail receives enough money from the Government to implement the Hidden report?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Government attach top priority to safety. Part of the reason why it is not easy to cost in full the Hidden proposals is that the technology, for instance on automatic train protection, does not exist. We have authorised expenditure on three pilot schemes to develop the technology. Only when the technology is available will we know the overall cost. There is no question of trying to avoid the issue. All the recommendations have been accepted. Work on all of them is in hand but work on some of them, especially this one, will take longer. It is the main recommendation, the biggest and the most expensive.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is it correct that my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of merging the railway inspectorate with the Health and Safety Executive? Does he except that many people——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the chairman of British Rail doing it?

Mr. Coombs: Yes, indeed. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to discuss that important matter with the chairman of British Rail? Will he accept the good wishes of many hon. Members that he should continue to discuss that important matter?

Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. I reassure him that the discussions are in hand. We believe that it is a fundamental problem, that the Government own the railways and also have responsibility for safety. We do not own the oil industry or the other industries for which the Department has safety responsibilities. However, we own the railways. There is a case for transferring that responsibility to the HSE. That is what we are discussing.

Mr. Prescott: Has the Secretary of State read the report issued today by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which makes it absolutely clear that the resources necessary to meet the safety recommendations of the Hidden report cannot be financed from the present corporate plan? In his discussions with the chairman, will the Secretary of State consider how the corporate plan can be renegotiated so that moneys can be found to meet those safety commitments and return some of the £2 billion that the Government have pinched from support for the railways?

Mr. Parkinson: I shall be discussing the report with the chairman of the CTCC. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about a three-year programme. The chairman seems to be jumping the gun in saying that on the evidence of a couple of months he can predict what can happen in the next three years. He seems to have been listening to too many ill-informed speeches from the hon. Gentleman. British Rail will have the resources necessary to meet the capital programmes that we have devised. Those resources will come from what the hon. Gentleman calls "public money"—from grants, sales of assets belonging to the public, depreciation of assets belonging to the public and loans from the National Loans Fund at preferential rates—so let us have no more nonsense about the Government and the taxpayer not contributing.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that he has the support of his hon. Friends for the present extensive investments in British Rail, but when he next speaks to the chairman of British Rail will he stress the need for speedy construction of new rail stock, because we in the north-west are receiving many complaints that trains are shorter than necessary and more overcrowded, that safety is affected and that services are being reduced due to the lack of new rolling stock? Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the importance of speeding up that programme?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, and I should advise my hon. Friend that the shortage does not arise from a shortage of money. It is because deliveries of new rolling stock are already 40 weeks late, which means that rolling stock that should have been replaced is still being used—[HON.

MEMBERS: "Because BREL was privatised."] No, the backlog was built up when British Rail Engineering Ltd was in the public sector. It has not got any worse—in fact it has slightly improved—since privatisation. We recognise the problem that my hon. Friend has identified, and Ht is being dealt with. The stock is on order and as soon as it is available it will replace the old stock which is causing so many problems.

Traffic Examiners, Wales

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make it his policy that traffic examiners in Wales shall continue to operate under the direct supervision of his Department's traffic office in Cardiff.

Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. Traffic examiners will continue to be managed by the Department's traffic area office in Cardiff until April 1991.
Thereafter, responsibility for their management will pass to the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that the most efficient form of organisation is that which has the most direct line of communication and supervision? Does he agree that having a properly integrated operation, with the inspectors working directly to the office in Cardiff, would be the best way of achieving the best possible supervision and the most effective operation?

Mr. Atkins: I am entirely satisfied that the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency and its staff will do their level best to ensure not only that the present high standard will be maintained, but that the even higher standard for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing will be achieved under our proposals.

Air Fares

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to bring down air fares in Europe.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Government are committed to removing the barriers to competition in air transport by liberalisation within the Community and bilaterally. This should lead to lower fares and increased consumer choice.

Mr. Smith: What progress is being made? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is still cheaper to fly to New York than to many European destinations? Does he agree that if liberalisation of air transport is to be meaningful for air passengers it must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that there is real competition and that small airlines can survive?

Mr. McLoughlin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about competition policy. It is vital that we ensure that there is room for all the smaller companies. Liberalisation will give those companies greater opportunities to take advantage of the market.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not monstrous that there should be such huge fare differences from Manchester and the London airports to other European cities approximately the same distance away? Does the Minister agree that this hurts the interests of Manchester airport, discrimin-


ates against northern passengers and chokes the skies over south-east England even more dangerously? What action are the Government taking?

Mr. McLoughlin: A number of factors lead a person to decide where he should start his journey from. It is Government policy to encourage regional airports to take as much advantage as possible of a liberalised aviation market, and it is with that in prospect that we are trying to bring about a more liberal agreement between the Community and other areas. The Government certainly intend to see regional airports develop.

Public Transport, London

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any recent representations from the public on the standard of service to passengers using London public transport systems; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Portillo: Yes. The quality of service objectives that we have set for British Rail and London Transport, coupled with the much increased investment that we have approved, are designed to secure a significant improvement in service standards.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Although he does not have direct responsibility, will he again focus on the plight of the Metropolitan line from Harrow on the Hill to central London via Baker street? Does he recall using that line some years ago when he was a distinguished sixth former in that area and how good the service was then? Does he further agree that the daily scenario now of filthy, unswept, lurching, clapped-out old-fashioned, graffiti-swamped rolling stock, which sums up the coaches on the Metropolitan line service, despite its speed to Baker street, is an unacceptable concomitant to the daily psychological and physical pressures on my long-suffering commuter constituents? Will he discuss that urgently with his colleagues?

Mr. Portillo: I am sorry to hear of the deterioration that has apparently occurred in the past few years and I shall naturally look into it. My hon. Friend will be aware that his constituents are about to benefit from the massive investment of £100 million in new rolling stock on the Chiltern line, which runs through his constituency. They will also be beneficiaries of the £1 billion to be invested in extending the Jubilee line to Waterloo, docklands and Stratford. I hope that his constituents will derive great benefit from all that.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that public transport passengers in London are paying some of the highest fares in Europe for some of the worst services? Is he aware that in recent times on any one morning as many as 12 Underground stations are closed due to overcrowding, that two thirds of the timetabled bus services in the capital do not depart on time and that in January in an average week 26 Underground stations had to be closed due to lack of staff? The level of public complaints in London is clearly more than justified and the Minister should accept that.

Mr. Portillo: I am not sure what the hon. Lady is proposing. She knows perfectly well that investment in London Underground has been doubled since we took it

over from the Greater London council, that we propose to double it again in the next three years, that we propose a major programme to upgrade all the existing Underground system and that we have committed ourselves to a £1 billion extension of the Jubilee line. The Labour Government could never even have dreamt of all the improvements which are under way now. The hon. Lady will see from the records that the Government have committed themselves not only to a record level of investment but to one which is as much as the Underground could physically manage.

Coaches (Limiters)

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in fitting speed limiters to coaches.

Mr. Atkins: The programme for fitting speed limiters to all coaches first used in 1974 or later will be completed by 31 March next year. Speed limiters should by now be fitted to most modern coaches.

Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend knows, I welcome this safety measure. Is he aware of reports suggesting that many coach operators have been slow to fit speed limiters, which will be a legal requirement from the end of this month for many coaches? Will he take this opportunity to repeat that from the Dispatch Box? Will he also look into the possibility of his Department advising various coach operators that they face legal penalties if they do not comply?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has rightly often raised this matter. I have no evidence that the campaign of enforcement is being delayed. If he has evidence to that effect, I should be grateful to hear it. I am delighted to accept his offer to re-emphasise to those on both sides of the House who are interested the importance of speed limiters to coaches in that they can save lives and prevent unnecessary accidents.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister also considered the introduction of compulsory spray-suppressant mud flaps for coaches and lorries because of the great danger created to other motorists by the spray from heavy lorries on the on the motorways? Such spray is one of the greatest dangers on motorways at present.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right and that concern has been expressed to me on numerous occasions. We are having discussions with the European Community and, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's views and the many suggestions from hon. Members on both sides of the House will be taken into account.

Motorists' Organisations

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent meetings he has had with representatives of motorists' organisations; and what was discussed.

Mr. Atkins: I have met the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club—and other road users' organisations—since the summer and have discussed matters of mutual interest with them. This afternoon I am going straight from here to meet the RAC again.

Mr. Butler: Did those organisations discuss with my hon. Friend the fact that motorists pay far more into the Exchequer than is spent on them by the Department of Transport? Will he bear that in mind before he develops any policy to increase taxation on motorists?

Mr. Atkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend, being a fair man, will be ready to applaud the substantially increased spending on public transport and roads among other things, within the Department of Transport budget and to recognise that as evidence of the Government's and the Department's commitment to the British driving public. There is, of course, always room for improvement and I shall be happy to try to oblige.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Clockwork Orange

Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to discuss prosecutions arising from operation Clockwork Orange.

The Attorney-General: (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have had no such discussion with either director.

Mr. Allen: If just a fraction of the allegations, accusations and rumours in respect of the Clockwork Orange operation are true, that is of great concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Does the Attorney-General feel that he has some constitutional, political or even moral responsibility to get to the bottom of this?

The Attorney-General: No evidence suggesting that criminal activity took place has come to my attention—I would certainly have a constitutional role if that were the case. I notice that this matter was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his oral statement of 1 February when he said that if people did have evidence of conduct that they believed to be criminal, they should
produce it so that the matter can be investigated properly.
He went on to contrast the profusion of allegations with what he described as:
an amazing unwillingness to produce evidence which can be tested and checked"—[Official Report, 1 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 454.]

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what meetings he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters of departmental interest; our last meeting was on 26 February this year.

Mr. Skinner: When the Attorney-General next meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he draw his attention to the House of Fraser report and ask him when the Al-Fayed brothers are to be brought before the British law courts? In view of the document that every Member of Parliament now has, surely those men should be treated with the same kind of justice as other people. Is he aware that millions of our electors are asking, "Why should we

pay the poll tax and observe the law of the land when the City crooks can get away with it?" Is there one law for the Al-Fayed brothers and for big busness men and another for the millions of people who have to pay the poll tax?

The Attorney-General: There is no need for me to draw the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the director of the Serious Fraud Office to the report on House of Fraser as they considered it for more than 18 months, having instigated a thorough police investigation. They instigated that investigation to secure the best chance of investigating matters with a view to prosecuting, if appropriate, to a successful conclusion. That was why they established the police investigation and why they asked the Secretary of State to withhold publication of the report.
Of course I agree that the same law should apply to the Al-Fayed brothers as to everyone else. [Interruption.] It is perhaps naive, but if the hon. Gentleman asks a question I assume, in his favour, that he wants an answer rather than merely to interrupt the whole time. The same law should and does apply, but there is one very important distinction that I wish to make clear. Whereas it was open to the inspectors to take account of hearsay evidence if they thought that it was reliable—and of course it was open to them to reach the conclusion that they did—it would not have been open to a jury in a criminal case to convict upon evidence of the same character. The inspectors are entitled to take account of evidence covering a wider scope than that available in criminal proceedings in an English court.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, unsatisfactory though this whole matter is, taking action which is totally ineffectual and useless is worse than taking no action at all? He has made the point, which bears repeating, that what the inspectors saw to be completely clear and unarguable would not stand up in a court of law because it was based on hearsay evidence which would not have been admissible.

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Inquiries were pursued in every part of the world indicated by the inspectors' report, but the directors had to conclude, as they said in their joint statement issued on 1 March that there was insufficient evidence available for use in an English court in English criminal proceedings on any matter of substance raised in the inspectors' report to warrant the bringing of criminal proceedings. Exactly the same criterion has been applied in this case as has been applied in every other criminal case, and as was required under the code for prosecutors which has the approval of the House of Commons.

Mr. Fraser: What was the offence for which there was prima facie evidence? Can the Attorney-General confirm whether, if section 151 of the Companies Act 1989 had been in force, the conduct described in the Harrods case and in the British Aerospace and British Leyland case would give rise to prima facie evidence for offences under that Act? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that that section is brought into force as soon as possible?

The Attorney-General: I will not deal with the effect of that section in this context, but I will draw the attention of the House—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter—to the substantial extra precautions that can be taken in the light of that legislation. We have


substantially improved the means by which conduct can be monitored in connection with company activities and that is a matter which is supplemented by the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill currently before Parliament, which will make it easier for a court to issue a letter of request for evidence from overseas. Those provisions represent some tightening up in the available legislation, and I believe that that is desirable.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my right hon. and learned Friend, with his comprehensive legal knowledge, say whether there might have been sufficient rather than insufficient evidence if the Government had been able earlier to implement section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which gave powers to obtain information from other countries, rather than implementing it last week, as he kindly explained in the letter that he sent to me?

The Attorney-General: It might have been of some assistance—it is very difficult to tell. As I have just said, these matters will be easier under the Bill now before Parliament. However, a commission rogatoire was issued to one country, and investigations have been pursued in every part of the world in which the inspectors' report showed that such investigations would be desirable.

Birmingham Six

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham Six case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General: It was mentioned briefly on Thursday 30 November when considering parliamentary questions for answer on Monday 4 December.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General agree that however much new evidence comes forward in the case the judges will never in any circumstances own up to a mistake, so the only way out for everyone is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to go to the Court of Appeal and ask for the convictions to be quashed, as he did in the Guildford case, in such terms as to allow the judges absolutely no discretion? Before the Attorney-General replies, I remind him that when I suggested on previous occasions at Question Time that the people convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings were innocent he chose to poke fun at me. Will he now inject a note of humility into his reply?

The Attorney-General: I reject with force what the hon. Gentleman has said about judges being unwilling or unable to admit to making mistakes when mistakes have been made.
The decision on whether the case of the Birmingham Six is to be referred again to the Court of Appeal rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The six were convicted after a trial by a jury and their case cannot be raised again, save by the Home Secretary referring the matter to the Court of Appeal, as has already happened once. My right hon. and learned Friend has said in written answers on more than one occasion that if matters are brought to his attention suggesting a need for serious investigation, they will receive it. He is already considering matters brought to his attention by a solicitor on behalf of some of the men, but in this country we do not set aside convictions by Executive action.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Latin America

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in supporting the teaching of English in Latin America.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): New English language teaching projects are about to be agreed in Peru and Colombia, and a further project is in prospect in Bolivia. These will be in addition to existing projects in Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay.

Mr. Arnold: May I welcome the support that has been given to the Culturå Inglesa in those various countries and congratulate it on the excellent job that it does in teaching English? Bearing in mind that Latin Americans prefer to learn English rather than American, and that they are ready to pay for that teaching, can my right hon. Friend tell us what more may be done to help the teaching and infrastructure of English in those countries?

Mrs. Chalker: I understand that the British Council has some self-financing programmes for teaching English anyway. There are, additionally, commercial courses teaching English in a number of South American countries, but we top up that undertaking with the sort of programmes that I have just mentioned which I believe will teach English well and show the people of those countries the benefits of knowing English and of being able to do business with Britain.

Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend did not mention Chile. Will she bear in mind that advances in regressive countries deserve consideration, and that Chile has now advanced to democracy again?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend will be aware that the income per head in Chile would rule out any aid programme. I believe that there are a number of totally self-financing commercial courses teaching English in Chile, and we should of course welcome more initiatives of that kind.

Sri Lanka

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Minister for Overseas Development has to visit Sri Lanka.

Mrs. Chalker: At present I have no plans to visit Sri Lanka.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware of the ongoing efforts of the President of Sri Lanka to try to reunite that country and to build up confidence in it? Against that background will she assure the House that she will do all that she can to encourage such confidence? Most especially, if requests are made for foreign aid or technical assistance, will she and her Department look favourably on them?

Mrs. Chalker: I am glad that President Premadasa has managed to make an improvement in the south of the country, but there are still grave concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka. We have an aid programme in that country. In 1988–89, our substantial aid expenditure


totalled £19·4 million, although it will probably be a little less in the current financial year. We recognise that there is a need to provide help, especially in the environmental area, but we must be careful about the use of technical co-operation officers in a country which still has much civilian strife.

Mr. Jack: Pursuant to my right hon. Friend's previous reply about environmental policies, what benefit will there be for forestry in Sri Lanka?

Mrs. Chalker: A forestry project is at an advanced state of preparation and includes the study of land use and conservation in the Victoria dam catchment area. There is also a major project, which we are helping through the aid and trade provision, on the Samanalawewa dam.

Mr. Madden: What action is the Minister taking to gauge the extent of human and civil rights abuses in Sri Lanka? What representations has she made to the Government in that regard?

Mrs. Chalker: Our high commissioner in Sri Lanka saw the President on 28 February. We constantly monitor what is happening. Britain, like other major donors, is looking for a distinct improvement in human rights. We were extremely concerned about the abduction and death of Richard d'Zoysa.

Kenya

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed during the visit to Kenya by the Minister for Overseas Development.

Mrs. Chalker: I had constructive discussions with the Kenyan Vice-President and Ministers during my visit to Nairobi last week. I reiterated our support for Kenya's economic reform programme and our intention to maintain a substantial bilateral aid programme. We also discussed regional issues, especially the tragic civil wars in the Horn of Africa and the impending famine in Ethiopia.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Did my right hon. Friend find that the Ethiopian famine loomed large with the Kenyan people? What was the nature of her discussions with the Kenyan Government about that and what further action does she plan to take?

Mrs. Chalker: The problems of the Horn of Africa loomed large in my discussions in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, as well as in Ethiopia. As a result of those discussions and the facts that we discovered, I am today announcing another £8·5 million of new emergency relief and food aid for Ethiopia.

Vietnam

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to restore development aid to Vietnam.

Mrs. Chalker: The Government are considering the possibility of supporting British non-governmental organisation activities in Vietnam, especially to help the communities in the areas from which the boat people came.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister accept that that sounds like a slight improvement in what was otherwise a scandalous position for the Government to take? Will she now respond positively to the pleas by the Save the Children Fund, Christian Aid and Oxfam to ensure that there is essential economic aid to deal with the appalling poverty in Vietnam? Will the Government use their influence to stop the international embargo which appeals to the Pentagon but to no one else?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may remember that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I had a meeting with a number of non-governmental organisations on 14 November 1989. At that meeting we invited the NGOs to put forward a number of proposals which may help people coming from the area where the boat people came from. We have received the proposals only in the last week, but we shall be considering them urgently.

Mr. Lester: Now that my hon. Friend has received those proposals, will she assure the House that they will be quickly targeted to those areas in north Vietnam, where it is expected that boat people will leave from next? I recognise that it is difficult to decide when to joint-fund those programmes, but urgency is vital. The quicker we can make the programmes work, the better for the boat people, for the people of Hong Kong and for the Vietnamese in south-east Asia.

Mrs. Chalker: I will do so as quickly as possible, but as it has taken a number of months for the agencies to come up with their proposals, they must be considered properly. If they are viable, we shall put them into operation as soon as possible.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that the normalisation of relations with Vietnam is crucial both to the future of the boat people and to the stabilisation of the situation in Cambodia? Will she again give this further consideration and also consider exercising influence on the United States?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, of course we shall. We greatly welcome the withdrawal of Vietnamese combat units from Cambodia. All those things are steps in the right direction, but we are still waiting to see how the Vietnamese Government will respond. Until we have seen how they respond, it is difficult for me to give the hon. Gentleman the total commitment that he would like.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister not understand that an end to the economic isolation of Vietnam is esential before we can solve the problem of the boat people? It is not sufficient to leave it to the voluntary agencies to provide the kind of aid that Vietnam needs. Has she not read the International Monetary Fund report, which urges enormous aid to Vietnam? Why do we continue to follow the policy of the American Government in imposing a vicious, vindictive embargo on the kind of assistance that Vietnam ought to have?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady is perhaps less aware than she might be of the outstanding arrears to the IMF. More than $100 million is owed to the IMF and $3·3 million to the Asian Development bank. Until a solution is worked out with the IMF, there will be no active lending programmes by any of the major donor countries, so in that respect we are no different from other donors. I am


very much aware of the needs of the people of Vietnam. We shall certainly start in the way that I outlined in November. A direct bilateral aid programme will not be possible until an economic recovery programme is agreed with the international financial institutions.

Climatic Change

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies have been made by the Overseas Development Administration on additional development need occasioned by observed or likely climatic change.

Mrs. Chalker: As well as preparing a paper for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on financial measures to help developing countries, the ODA has commissioned a study on options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in developing countries, and has helped to finance a study on the phasing out of CFCs in India.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she tell us whether any of the studies have been commissioned from the Overseas Development Administration's natural resources institute, or whatever its modern name is, in Chatham? Does she agree that client-based research by that institute is unlikely to be so effective as basic research which it might otherwise conduct?

Mrs. Chalker: Parts of the Deprtment are engaged in getting expert advice from within and without the Department for the papers being written for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We certainly have excellent advice coming from the Overseas

Development Administration's natural resources institute, but much of what we gain on forestry and on atmospheric emissions comes from other worthwhile but outside institutions.

Vietnam

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Hanoi to discuss development aid with the Vietnamese Government.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Wareing: In view of the answers that the right hon. Lady has already given about Vietnam, is it not about time that she made arrangements to visit Hanoi? This country is already giving aid to some pretty rotten regimes so there is no excuse for following lamely in the footsteps of the United States of America on this. Does the Minister agree that if we took a real lead in giving unilateral aid to Vietnam we might have a stronger influence on that country in terms of bringing it forward in a more democratic spirit?

Mrs. Chalker: I was answering in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I, too, have no immediate plans to visit Hanoi. I hope that progress can be made on the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are certainly pursuing our own plan with Vietnam and not following in anybody's footsteps.

Iraq (Prisoners)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what action Her Majesty's Government are taking following the sentences imposed on Mr. Farzad Bazoft and Mrs. Daphne Parish by a court in Iraq.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): The whole House will join me in expressing dismay and horror at the unjustified sentences that Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish received from the Iraqi revolutionary court on Saturday. The sentences are out of all proportion to any offence that may have been committed. In particular, we deplore the death sentence passed on Mr. Bazoft.
Before the trial opened last Thursday, we had made more than 50 separate representations to the Iraqi authorities making clear our concern for the well-being of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Bazoft. Our major concern at that stage was to try to secure a fair trial for Mrs. Parish and Mr. Bazoft.
In addition to that constant pressure on the Iraqi authorities, the Prime Minister wrote to President Saddam Hussain on 21 February, before the trial took place, to express her concern about the two cases. President Saddam Hussain replied to the Prime Minister on 28 February assuring her that the trial would indeed be a fair one. From the account that we have received, it is clear that no evidence was presented that would justify such harsh and disproportionate sentences.
Our immediate aim is to save the life of Mr. Bazoft and to secure a review of the sentence imposed on Mrs. Parish. As soon as the outcome of the trial was known on Saturday, the Prime Minister wrote again to President Saddam Hussain asking for both sentences to be reduced on humanitarian grounds. At the same time, we summoned the Iraqi ambassador and made clear to him the Government's reaction.
We have asked our friends and allies in the middle east and elsewhere to approach the Iraqi Government and support our call for clemency. The European Community has already taken action. The Irish, French and Italian ambassadors in Baghdad, on behalf of the Twelve, delivered a message to the Iraqi authorities urging them to reconsider the sentences.
In all this, we should not forget the plight of Mr. Ian Richter, another British prisoner serving an unjustifiably harsh sentence in a Baghdad prison.
Iraq has shown herself recently to be concerned about what she would call the misrepresentation of her policies abroad. She can be in no doubt about the damage that would be done to her standing in the world, let alone to her relations with the United Kingdom, if these unacceptable sentences were to be confirmed.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government will have the full support of Her Majesty's Opposition in taking action to secure the release of Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish? Is he further aware that we regard the sentences as unacceptable, having been imposed following a secret trial and a staged confession?
We welcome the action so far taken by the Government and by the European Community, and we welcome also

the support of King Hussein of Jordan. We urge the Government to ask our European Community partners, individually as well as collectively, to make representations to the Iraqi Government. The French Government in particular should have a special status with Baghdad, following the help that it gave to Iraq in the Gulf war.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about contact with middle eastern countries. Have the Government been in touch with the League of Arab States, for it would be very valuable if they would intercede—in particular, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in view of their particularly close relationship with Iraq.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the Iraqi Government that, even though we have had serious misgivings about basic aspects of Iraqi policy, Members on both sides of the House have been active in seeking to improve the United Kingdom's relationship with Iraq and would wish that improvement to continue? Will he make it equally clear that, if Mr. Bazoft were to be executed, that would inevitably have the most damaging impact on our bilateral relations, both diplomatically and in trade terms, and, in particular, in terms of financial credit? How many British business men, for example, would be ready to visit a country where they might be arrested on trumped-up spying charges and face the death penalty?
In this case there are serious implications for journalistic freedom and serious implications for human rights. In whatever further approaches the British Government make to the Iraqi Government on behalf of Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish, will they make it clear that they speak on behalf of a completely united House of Commons?

Mr. Waldegrave: I greatly appreciate the tone in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has spoken. On occasions like this, the unity of the House is important, and in that regard I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
We have made a number of contacts in the middle east, both with multilateral organisations and with individual countries. I shall follow up one or two of the further suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. He is right to emphasise that Iraq ought to consider the utterly inevitable response, not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere, if it should persist in these sentences. Even if the Government or the Opposition or individual politicians wanted to suppress the reaction in the United Kingdom, it would be beyond their capacity to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that. Of course, we do not wish in any way to disguise our own horror.
As I said on Saturday, as events unfold we shall rule out nothing. We shall look at all the possibilities, but we hope that at this late hour the President of Iraq will respond to the appeal, not only of the Government but of the right hon. Gentleman, to look to the future of his country in relation to the rest of the world community. We hope that he will respond to the appeals for clemency.

Mr. Ian Gow: Was any representative of our embassy in Baghdad present at the trial? Has my right hon. Friend received a transcript of the proceedings? Does he have any evidence that this trial could be described as having been in any way a fair one?

Mr. Waldegrave: Our consul-general was present at the trial. We have not received a transcript, but we have


received his account. I would draw a distinction between a revolutionary court in Baghdad and the normal courts of Iraq, the latter of which follow procedures that would be relatively familiar to this House. A revolutionary court proceeds in a much more secretive way, and there is no formal appeal against its decisions. That is why we had to appeal to the President for clemency. In the terms of any proceedings that this House would recognise as a trial, we should not be happy to describe the proceedings of the revolutionary court as constituting a fair trial.

Sir Russell Johnston: I wonder whether, by any chance, the Minister heard a programme on the radio last night in which the press counsellor at the Iraqi embassy, whose name I do not remember, was interviewed. He said that he hoped that relations between Iraq and the United Kingdom would not be affected adversely "by this small matter". I thought that those words were quite chilling and indicated clearly that the gentleman concerned did not understand press freedom or human rights.
I welcome what the Minister has said, and I support what has been said by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Has any direct request been made to the Iraqi Government that the two persons concerned be repatriated to this country directly?

Mr. Waldegrave: Our first suggestion, all those weeks ago, was that repatriation would be by far the best and simplest way of dealing with the matter. Unfortunately, there was no response to that suggestion. I share the hon. Member's anxiety that people should talk about human rights in the terms used by the press counsellor whom he quoted. We must get it across to Iraq that, to this House, these are not small matters but major matters. We understand that Iraq has been through a terrible war and that there is still no formal peace. We understand the tensions and the pressures that exist in that country. None the less, Iraq must understand that we attach immense value to human rights and to the protection of our citizens and those travelling in our name.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. He has the full support of all right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side—indeed, I am pleased to see, in the House as a whole. I am grateful also that he included in his reply a reference to my constituent Mr. Ian Richter, who has served nearly four years' imprisonment in Baghdad for a crime that most of us feel was completely trumped up—something more to do with internal Iraqi politics than with justice. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider how we might react to Iraq if things should go sadly wrong in this case, particularly as, only recently, we have increased credit to Iraq? Perhaps now is the time to start getting tough. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend's diplomatic pressure is extremely welcome.

Mr. Waldegrave: I deliberately referred in my answer to the case of Mr. Ian Richter, which my hon. Friend has assiduously pursued on a constituency basis, and I pay tribute to him for that. All the remaining Iraqi co-defendants in Mr. Richter's trial have been released. We have long sought his release. We add our plea for him to our pleas for the others. My hon. Friend referred to one

relationship between Britain and Iraq. As I have said, we shall consider all the connections between our two countries as events unfold.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who have long been friends of the Arab world find the conduct of a court such as this and sentences such as these very disturbing and that we would all urge the President of Iraq, who has powers of clemency in such matters, to use those powers?

Mr. Waldegrave: I very much value the hon. Gentleman's intervention. People like him who know the Arab world well and who can by no stretch of the imagination be decribed as Zionist plotters may carry some weight in this matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point. An Iraqi information Minister said today that the pressure that was brought to bear by the international community in this case represented some form of intervention in Iraq's internal affairs. That is not so. We understand that it is perfectly in order for petitions for clemency to go to the President after a decision by the revolutionary court. That is what, I hope, the House joins us in pressing for.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of finding a solution to this terrible problem is through diplomatic pressure? Does he agree that, however genuine may be the revulsion of some hon. Members towards the Iraqi regime, this is not the time to malign that regime? Now is the time to look to Iraq to understand the seriousness of the implications for its role in the international community if it proceeds with these sentences.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, just as I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Today the House is trying to achieve a particular outcome—to save Mr. Bazoft's life and to get a reasonable sentence for Mrs. Parish. This is not the occasion for loose rhetoric, and the House is not indulging in it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important day on Northern Ireland matters ahead of us. I shall call two more Members from each side, and then we must move on.

Mr. David Winnick: Should not the House be concerned with truth and honesty as well as with desperately trying to save the life of the person involved? Does not Iraq have one of the worst records in repression and in denial of human rights? Has the right hon. Gentleman noted, arising from the case of these two people, the way in which the British media have rightly spotlighted what has been happening in Iraq? If the worst came to the worst and this killing took place, would not British public opinion certainly expect from the Government stern action, undoubtedly including economic sanctions and, if necessary, the breaking off of diplomatic relations, just as we did, with every justification, with Iran and Syria?

Mr. Waldegrave: As I said, I hope that the House will not press me today to go into further details on any steps that may or may not have to be taken. As the hon. Gentleman said, rightly, if these sentences were carried out, immense revulsion would be felt in this country.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and I were visiting Mr. Ian Richter in Baghdad prison when Mr. Bazoft was arrested? Is he also aware that one of my constituents, Mr. John Smith, was released from a life sentence in Iraq the previous year? Therefore, I speak with some authority when I support the Govenment in their diplomatic efforts to secure some clemency and the release of Mr. Bazoft. I put it to my right hon. Friend that the important relationships between Iraq and this country cannot always depend on individuals and, if they act as imposters and fools—as some do—they invite some retribution upon them. But, in these instances, no one in his right mind would say that any crimes or offences that these people had committed were worthy of execution. I join the House in calling for clemency for Mr. Bazoft.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for joining hon. Members on both sides of the House in their general call for clemency. That is a matter on which we should concentrate today.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I endorse the views expressed about human rights and the threat to journalistic freedom and note that the European Community has been involved. But will the Minister consider having early consultation with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, which has some responsibility for human rights, with a view to an approach by the 23 member states—and perhaps, significantly, the guest member states—to assist the case advanced by the Foreign Office?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes another useful suggestion, and I shall certainly look into it.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Although I commend the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and have no illusions whatever about the poor standard of human rights in Iraq, may I caution my hon. Friend about in any way reducing our diplomatic representation in that country in the weeks ahead, bearing in mind how easy Britain seems to find it to break off diplomatic relations and how hard we find it to restore them? Is not Iraq just the kind of country where we need our skilled diplomats to protect Britain's business and commercial interests and also British individuals?

Mr. Waldegrave: My own preference would be to keep our ambassador there, working for the interests of those in this case and of other Britons. As I said, at this stage we cannot rule out any step, but certainly we need the ambassador there at present.

Points of Order

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, about the ability of a Back-Bench Member to give the Library a book or unpublished or confidential material that may help other hon. Members.
The point of order arises out of the preparation of the Osborne report to the House of Bishops on homosexuality. I had some correspondence with Dr. Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which I asked whether he would make the report public. He refused by letter on the ground that it is confidential. I subsequently obtained a copy of the Osborne report, and on Thursday I gave it to the Library and it was accepted by the Library. On Friday, I tabled an early-day motion simply noting that I had given a copy to the Library so that other hon. Members would know that it was there and could read it.
I was astonished to find in my post this morning a letter from David Menhennet, the Librarian—a man for whom I have the greatest admiration—saying that on examining the document he had locked it in a cabinet pending clarification of its status and that it was a rule that private Members could not place unpublished or confidential material in the Library and citing page 196 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May". this letter says:
In my absence on Friday afternoon, the Deputy Librarian received a letter from the Secretary-General of the General Synod of the Church of England; and I have studied this letter carefully. It makes very clear that the Osborne Report is confidential to the House of Bishops and, at this stage at least, it is not for publication.
I have now been offered the report back.
I am disturbed because, as someone who uses the Library regularly and who has placed books in the Library before, I do not believe that it is in the invariable practice of the Library not to accept confidential information. I would recall your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the publication of the House of Fraser report, which came out over a year ago. The Observer published a two-page summary of that report, which was placed in the Library and made available even though it was clearly confidential and there was a court case concerning it. That summary was placed in the Library and hon. Members were allowed to go to the Library and see it.
The Library seems to be operating an arbitary policy and that cannot be right. Moreover, I seriously believe that for a library to refuse a book is little different from censoring that book or from burning it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order, so I have been able to look into the matter with some care. The hon. Gentleman has more or less answered his own question. As "Erskine May" makes it clear on page 196, private Members may not deposit papers in the Library, and the unpublished paper handed in by the hon. Gentleman was not considered appropriate for acceptance as a gift.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have not answered the question because perhaps you have not been told the answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred to The Observer publication which caused a row 12 months ago. A copy of


that document was placed in the Library and statements were made in the House to the effect that if any hon. Member wanted to look at the summary of the House of Fraser report which appeared in The Observer they could see a copy in the Library. Are the bishops and archbishops more important because there is a link between the Church of England and the House of Commons? Can they censure the document?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a considerable difference involved in that respect. As I understand it, this document has not been published. In effect, I suppose that it is stolen property. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Well, it was not considered appropriate for the document to be accepted by the Library.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If the hon. Member for Bolsover will place in the Library the minutes of last Friday's meeting of the National Union of Mineworkers which lasted five hours, would we be able to read what happened with regard to the Scargill inquiry?

Mr. Speaker: It would depend whether that was stolen property as well.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand this place, we are the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I thought that we represented the people. Is it not fair that hon. Members, who may be asked questions on any issue, including what happens with regard to those layabouts in the Synod,

should be able to read any document that helps them to do their job properly? Why are we to be banned from reading documents which other people have? I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If we cannot read such documents, there is censorship, which I thought that the House was against.

Mr. Speaker: This document has not been published. that is the essential difference.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must make progress. I call Mrs. Clwyd.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I want to raise a point of order about the misuse of questions by the Minister for Overseas Development. She used question No. 65, which was specific and, was about Kenya, to make a statement about Ethiopia, from where she has just returned. We have only 10 minutes in Question Time every three weeks to discuss issues of great importance about overseas aid. Therefore, the Government should make a statement on the crisis in Ethiopia where thousands of people are dying every day from famine and war. We have had no statement from the Government on that important issue and I believe that it is the wish of the House that the Government should make a statement so that we can discover as soon as possible what action they intend to take about that crisis.

Mr. Speaker: Had I observed the hon. Lady rising earlier-I am afraid that I did not do so-I would have called her to put her question to the Minister. I do not know whether it was my fault; if it was, I apologise.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the 17 motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Mercury Communications Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Northern Ireland (Terrorism)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
Right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in these debates in the past will notice that the order bears a somewhat different title from those of previous years. As in the past, this order continues in force for a further 12 months the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987. Without this order, the provisions would expire on 21 March.
This year, however, the order will likewise continue in force for a further period certain parts of the prevention of terrorism Act as they apply to Northern Ireland. The main body of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was the subject of a separate continuance order which the House debated last week, but, as some of the provisions are renewable as though they were part of the emergency provisions Acts, they are covered by the order.
I should like in a moment to say something about the level of terrorist activity against which today's debate is taking place, but, before doing so, it may help the House if I explain briefly what the provisions are that we are proposing to renew today and why we need them. In aiming, as we do, to create a just, peaceful and prosperous society in Northern Ireland, the chief aim of the Government's security policy is to end terrorism—from whichever side of the community it comes. Our first responsibility, therefore, is to ensure that the police and armed forces have the support and resources that they need to undertake their difficult and dangerous work on behalf of all people of Northern Ireland. That includes equipping them with the additional statutory powers that they require to deal effectively with the pestilence of terrorism in the Province by deterring and interdicting terrorist operations and, when terrorist crimes have been committed, by mounting in the courts successful prosecutions of terrorists.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I am a little confused. When the continuance of the prevention of terrorism Act was debated the other night, there was no indication that the measures would be welded together. Why is that—or is the right hon. Gentleman now telling us why?

Mr. Brooke: Obviously there is a degree of overlap between them. Certain specific aspects that relate to Northern Ireland have been dealt with. I shall refer to the record to see whether the hon. Gentleman is correct.
The Government also recognise that, to be fully successful, the actions of the police and Army against terrorism, and indeed the operation of the whole criminal justice system, need support from all sections of the community.
It is, therefore, the two emergency provisions Acts which between them provide those extra powers that the police and armed forces still need to stop and question arid to search for, and to seize, terrorist material. They create the category of proscribed organisations for Northern


Ireland, and also offences associated with terrorist activity. In addition, they provide the legal authority for the so-called Diplock courts, and establish a scheme for the regulation of the security guard industry in Northern Ireland. But, at the same time, the Acts also guarantee statutory rights for terrorist suspects to have someone informed of their arrest and whereabouts and to have access to legal advice
As for the Preyention of Terrorism Act, the order continues certain sections as they apply to Northern Ireland. Those include the provisions relating to terrorist funding and its investigation and also certain exclusively Northern Ireland provisions that allow the police and armed forces to impose restrictions during searches. They also set out arrangements relating to remission and sentencing of those convicted of scheduled offences, and to the licensing of explosives factories.
Those are the key provisions to which the order applies.
I now refer to the security background against which today's debate takes place. As the House will need no reminding, terrorism, both republican and loyalist, continues at a significant level, not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain and on the European mainland. Statistics indicate a welcome improvement in the security situation in Northern Ireland, but there is no consolation to be had in the loss of 62 lives last year or in the 800 or so injuries.
During 1989, nine members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary lost their lives in Northern Ireland, including the savage murder of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan in South Armagh, and of Superintendent Harris in Lisburn. Another senior police officer, Inspector Monteith, was murdered in Armagh earlier this year. There was also a bomb attack against the home of an assistant chief constable.
Fourteen members of the armed forces also died in 1989, including two members of the UDR. Three soldiers were killed in a massive bomb attack at Mayobridge in November and two more at the Derryard checkpoint in December in what must be one of the most vicious attacks of its kind during the period of the troubles.
The House will want to join me in paying an unreserved tribute to all members of the security forces, whether in the RUC or the RUC Reserve, the Regular Army or the Ulster Defence Regiment. They deserve the full support of all decent people for the firm stand that they have taken against terrorism and for the way in which they strive to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland. Without their commitment, professionalism and courage, the levels of violence would have been immeasurably higher. Much of their work is unglamorous and routine, but they continue remorselessly to wear down terrorist organisations. There have been, for example, many important arrests and arms finds in recent months, and many terrorist attacks have been thwarted.
I commend the security forces for their speedy actions at Silverbridge only last month. I also pay tribute to the judiciary and the staff of the prison and court services who continue to do their duty in difficult circumstances. Incidents such as the planned breakout from the Crumlin road prison, which was disrupted only at an advanced stage, show that all of us concerned with defeating terrorism must remain on guard at all times.
Let me make it clear, unequivocally, that the eradication of terrorism, green or orange, remains the Government's top priority in Northern Ireland. There is no acceptable level of murder; we shall continue to work unreservedly for the defeat of terrorism with all the means at our disposal that are compatible with the letter and spirit of the rule of law. Let there be absolutely no doubt on this point: terrorism will never prevail. That is why the police and armed forces will continue to receive the full support of Her Majesty's Government for as long as it takes. We shall also continue to work actively for the political, economic and social progress in Northern Ireland that is necessary if their efforts are fully to succeed and lasting peace is to be won.

Mr. James Kilfedder: People in Northern Ireland will take comfort from what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Government's determination to root out terrorism. When he had been in office for three months, people were dumbfounded and demoralised by his statement that the IRA could not be beaten. That is why it is right that the Secretary of State should emphasise the point that he made. The present spate of tit-for-tat murders causes great anxiety to Protestants and Catholics alike in Northern Ireland. I roundly condemn those murders. Does he agree that the murders emphasise the need for all law-abiding people, including politicians and the Dublin Government, to give full and unequivocal support to the forces of law and order in order to destroy the evils of terrorism? There can be no trimmers in the fight between good and evil.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention. What I said three months after coming to office was that it was difficult to envisage the defeat of terrorism by military means and, by definition, by military means alone and that the armed forces needed to be supported in the way that I described a moment ago. I entirely endorse what he said about the tit-for-tat series of murders. The more voices that are raised in this cause, the better.
We shall also continue to maintain and improve security co-operation with the Irish Government under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. But if the efforts of the RUC and Army are to be fully effective, they must also command support across the community. I should, therefore, like to speak briefly about how they approach the duties that have been given to them under the law. None of us should underestimate how difficult their task is. It is hard and often dangerous work to police a divided society, but I have been impressed by the determination of both arms of the security forces to achieve the highest professional standards. They know that if the terrorist is to be isolated even further in the community, they must act, and be seen to act, fairly and impartially between the two communities, and to the highest professional standards. This is easy to say but a difficult target to reach. But I can assure the House that, together with the Chief Constable and the GOC, we shall continue to try to maintain and improve public confidence in the integrity and evenhandedness at all times of the security forces, as well as in their effectiveness.
It is against this background that we are considering the order today. Once again, I express our gratitude to Lord Colville for his report on the Acts. It is a short report this year because, as the House will know, he is now engaged


in a more substantial review of the legislation to consider what changes should be made to it when the current Acts expire in 1992. I have asked him to submit his report on that review by Easter. In due course we shall, thereafter, bring forward proposals. But many of the larger issues which he has traditionally considered in his annual report he will deal with instead in his other review.
So far as today's debate is concerned, Lord Colville's main recommendation is that all the powers currently in force should be continued for a further 12 months. The Government accept that recommendation, and the order will give effect to it. It remains our policy to drop as soon as possible any powers that are no longer justified by the exigencies of the situation, and right hon. and hon. Members will recall that, last year, three minor sections of the Acts were allowed to lapse and that it had been our intention, on Lord Colville's recommendation, to allow a further section to lapse this year. This was section 13 of the 1978 Act which provides a police power of arrest. For the reason given in Lord Colville's latest report, however, that provision must clearly be retained for the time being.
Lord Colville also returned again this year to the idea of video recording terrorist interviews by the police. As my predecessor said last year, there are substantial arguments against such a course, but we shall examine the proposal again carefully and fairly once we receive Lord Colville's recommendations following his further review.
The House knows that progress on security matters does not stand alone, as I said a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). Government policy embraces other vital aspects of the situation in Northern Ireland, such as economic development and political progress. It is therefore right in a debate on security matters to remind the House of the important role that they play in undermining terrorism and improving the position of the ordinary citizen in Northern Ireland.
Local exercise of political power on an agreed basis could help to bring terrorism to an end. It would demonstrate that constitutional politics can bring results in the form of a widely acceptable accommodation between the two parts of the community in Northern Ireland—something which terrorism, from either side of the community, can never do. It would marginalise extremists on both sides of the community and provide a firm basis for tackling Northern Ireland's community divisions.
It is the Government's hope and view that the present climate of political realism offers more hope of constructive political dialogue than for some time. My speech in Bangor on 9 January attempted to summarise my reading of the situation, and pointed out that I believed that there was some common ground between the parties that would allow them to engage in political dialogue. Politicians on all sides in Northern Ireland and senior voices in the Irish Government have contributed to the general mood of cautious optimism.
At present, the situation is fragile and delicate—it would be foolish to pretend otherwise—but with good will, flexibility and imagination on all sides, I do not see why the possibilities should not begin to be translated into probabilities.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State like myself and my colleagues, regret the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dublin in the

past fortnight, where it has been established beyond all doubt that the Irish Republic now has a legal claim—in its terms—against the territory of Northern Ireland? Does the Secretary of State realise that that gives great comfort and solace to the IRA, which has been saying that for many years? Will he assure us that he will do what he can to ensure that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution are amended as soon as possible?

Mr. Brooke: I have never thought that it was the most productive of courses for politicians to be in judgment upon judges and their judgments but, of course, I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman has said about the judgment given in the Supreme Court in Dublin last week. The hon. Gentleman and I have had the opportunity of discussing that and there is some variance between us on the exact interpretation of what occurred last week. However, I have no doubt that we shall continue to have further exchanges.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the Unionist people were told by the Government that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had put beyond doubt the fact that the status of Northern Ireland was now recognised and that there would be no change in that status until the majority of the people of Northern Ireland agreed with it? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that when the Unionists pointed out as forcefully as they could that the Government had to sign two agreements to please the Government of southern Ireland, they were laughed at? However, the Supreme Court is now saying to the Secretary of State, "You should not be in Northern Ireland. Your Government are illegitimate. It is the bounden and legal duty of Dublin to get you out of Northern Ireland and to use the Anglo-Irish Agreement to get you out."

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may think that what happened in the Irish Supreme Court last week ended the right of my right hon. and hon. Friends to sit in government in Northern Ireland, but in practical and de facto terms, that is an unusual judgment. I acknowledge that since 1937 there has been on the statute book and in the Irish constitution the claim to which he and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is an equal claim on the statute book of this land. There is no question, de facto, about who provides the Government of Northern Ireland. Furthermore, under article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Government of the Republic of Ireland have confirmed that that status will change only by a vote of the majority in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that today people in Northern Ireland will expect from the Dispatch Box in the clearest, most unequivocal terms a statement from him showing that he repudiates that arrogant claim, whether de facto or otherwise, and intends to do something to remove it from the constitution of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Brooke: It is beyond the capacity of anybody who stands at this Dispatch Box to change the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. That does not fall within our powers. I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in re-acknowledging the present status of Northern Ireland and its place on the statute book of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State recall his predecessor's statement the day after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed on 15 November 1985 that article 1 confirmed that the Republic of Ireland accepted the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom? Following last week's judgment in Dublin, will the Secretary of State repeat word for word what his predecessor said in presenting the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the House?

Mr. Brooke: I confirm that the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom remains exactly as it was in 1937, subject to subsequent changes in our own statutes.

Mr. Maginnis: Oh.

Mr. Brooke: Before the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone gets agitated, I remind him that Acts passed since 1937 have confirmed that on our statute book. Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement simply stated that the decision about the future status of Northern Ireland would be taken—this was endorsed by the Government of the Republic—by a majority of the people living in Northern Ireland. I can think of no readier acknowledgement by the Government of the Republic than that.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I am afraid that the Secretary of State does not grasp my point. I am talking not about the future status of Northern Ireland, nor about the attitude of the Dublin Government towards the future status of Northern Ireland, but about the present status of Northern Ireland, which in United Kingdom terms is exactly the same today as it was in 1985, subject to the introduction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In 1985 the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor won the approval of the House against our opposition for the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the basis that the Dublin Government recognised the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Last week's judgment wholly rejects that presentation by his predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman can no longer repeat word for word what his predecessor said in presenting the agreement to the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentlaman knows that there is, in de jure terms, a claim from both jurisdictions. In practical terms Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, sustained by the statute book of the United Kingdom. In article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement we now have, in addition, an endorsement by the Government of the Republic that that status will change only on a majority vote in Northern Ireland. If that does not constitute a recognition of the continuing position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, I do not know what does.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the wording of the Sunningdale agreement on the status of Northern Ireland was precisely and in every respect in accordance with the wording used in article 1? Therefore, my right hon. Friend is unintentionally misleading the House when he says that the Government of the Irish Republic acknowledged, for the first time, in article 1 of the 1985 agreement that the status of Northern Ireland could not be changed save with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: Were I, on the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), misleading the House, I would certainly apologise. My hon. Friend's question in no way militates against my observation since the questions addressed to me were in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to which I replied that article 1 confirmed that it would be the majority view in Northern Ireland that would decide the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. Barry Porter: rose

Mr. Brooke: I have been generous in responding, and I must get on.
Terrorism continues at a high level and remains the dominant social problem in Northern Ireland. It is the Government's wish to create a better, more prosperous future in which the people of Northern Ireland can freely make decisions about their own future, without coercion and the threat of violence. Eradicating terrorism of all kinds will, therefore, remain the central theme of our policy as long as is necessary. To this end, the courts, the police and armed forces must continue to have at their disposal all the legal resources they need. I therefore unreservedly commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: At the outset, on behalf of my colleagues, I express our sympathy to all those who have lost relatives or seen their relatives injured in the past year as a result of the troubles. I also pass on our sympathy to the injured. I want to mention specifically those who have been savagely gunned down in the past week, Sergeant Thomas Alexander Jameson of the Ulster Defence Regiment, Mr. Sam Marshall and Mr. Eamon Quinn, who was savagely gunned down in front of his wife. They have our prayers and their relatives and families have our sympathies.
We should also like to pay tribute to the members of the security forces who, in their day-to-day conduct, are responsible for ensuring that life progresses normally for the majority of people in the Province. Upon them, more than upon politicians and policy makers, depends the people's acceptance of the rule of law. Their day-to-day contact with the community depends, more than anyone else's, upon the community's acceptance of their role—defending that community. We give an awesome authority to the ordinary squaddie and policeman on the beat.
Today we are debating the renewal of the emergency abnormal powers. As the Secretary of State has said, we are indebted to Lord Colville for his assistance and careful and meticulous examination of the workings of the emergency provisions legislation. Whether we accept his conclusions or not—often the Government do not, as illustrated today—we are grateful to him for taking us through the legal minefield of the different pieces of legislation with which we must deal. He makes his report against a background of continuing terrorism and counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland.
In the introduction to his report this year Lord Colville stated that it was a "short report" because he was embarking this month on his "enhanced review" of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act 1987. Nevertheless, within his review, he has given us much food for thought. The Labour party has already submitted its proposals to Lord Colville for his enhanced review. We


expect that, when his report is published, the Government will give us time to have a full discussion of it before they embark on any of their own proposals for dealing with and changing the Act.
Despite the fact that we regarded Lord Colville's terms of reference as rather narrow, the Labour party's evidence was based upon two principles—first, that no power should remain on the statute book unless the case for its present existence is clearly established, and, secondly, that there is a need to consider the operation of the Act and to take into account its interrelationship with the rest of the criminal law in Northern Ireland—both emergency and ordinary laws.
Nevertheless, despite Lord Colville's recommendations that the measure should stand, section 12—the provision for internment without trial—in our opinion is both repugnant and redundant. While it remains on the statute book it is a constant reminder of the greatest political error made by any Government in the handling of the present emergency and it is a constant reminder to one section of the community of what may eventually be used against them yet again. It must go.
In last year's review of the operation of the Act Lord Colville stated in paragraph 1.5:
The battle for the hearts and minds should be the paramount preoccupation of those who exercise emergency powers.
That is the background against which we must judge the operation of the powers at the present time. Sadly, a number of events over the past year have raised the question of the competence of the way in which the law is administered and therefore of the future of the battle for hearts and minds. They include the McKerr judgment in the House of Lords last week, the Stevens inquiry, the role of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the primacy of policing in the campaign against terrorists.
In the McKerr case, the House of Lords ruled last week that the power of Northern Ireland coroners to compel persons to give evidence at an inquest into a death, where the person is suspected of causing the death, or has been charged with those likely to be charged with an offence relating to the death, is a rule which regulates the practice and procedure at an inquest and was validly made. That was an important decision based, as Lord Goff said, on procedural law and not on substantive law. It overturned a very closely reasoned and important judgment of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
The House of Lords decision is now the law, but we must consider its effects. No member of the security forces can now be compelled or examined under oath at a coroner's inquest if he or she has been involved or is suspected of being involved in the killing of a terrorist, a suspected terrorist or an innocent person. The reasons for their decision and the actions that they took in the killings cannot be examined.
The brother of one of my constituents was killed at Loughall. The dead man was an innocent person; he happened to arrive on the scene with his brother—they were the Hughes brothers—who was gravely injured. Their legal representatives cannot interrogate members of the security forces about the circumstances leading to the death of Mr. Hughes as a result of the House of Lords' decision.
At the coroner's inquest into the shootings and killings of three men outside a bookmakers earlier this year, one of whom who was allegedly unarmed and was shot

unwarned, sitting in the front of the car, the people who killed him cannot be asked about their motives. That means that the security forces are being protected to the extent that they are no longer merely civilians in uniform.
We now have three standards at coroners' inquests. First, in Northern Ireland we have the limitations placed upon inquests now, and the fact that the police can vet jurors, which is a return to the old provisions of the special powers act with a vengeance. Secondly, there is the type of coroner's inquest that we had in Gibraltar, with all its limitations, behind which the Government seek to hide to prevent further inquiries into what happened there. Thirdly, there is the coroner's inquest that we have on this island, where no such inhibitions and restrictions exist upon people being questioned and asked to account for their actions under oath.
The decision in the House of Lords was a sad day for British justice. To argue that Northern Ireland coroners exercise their powers of inquisition in such a manner as to give protection to citizens who might otherwie be impelled to give evidence and so to be exposed to embarrassment in circumstances where they may be subject to criminal proceedings by invoking the privilege of self-incrimination is little consolation to the relatives of my constituents. There is also little consolation in the matter of embarrassment. As The Independent said in its leader comment the day after the decision,
Experience teaches that when a judiciary construes the law so narrowly as to seem to be intent on saving functionaries of the state from the embarrassment of being questioned by citizens, it risks losing citizens' respect".
As a general proposition, that would be accepted as important in any society, but in a divided society such as Northern Ireland it is of the utmost importance. This is a decision that we shall live to regret. The opportunity to lay to rest the shoot-to-kill policy which the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland had given—a policy which the Government had continuously tried to cover up for reasons of state—has been lost because of the decision in the House of Lords.
The Independent drew attention to another issue:
Perhaps their Lordships see the idea that law should have a policy as a strange and alien notion. Certainly they seem indifferent to the broad issue of policy in this case: whether the judiciary will effectively challenge the executive's reluctance to permit effective scrutiny of its conduct in matters which are of the gravest importance to both human rights and constitutional principle.
That is a question of supreme importance, and in the divided society of Northern Ireland, in which both sides are concerned about the role of the security forces and about the policy directions that they are given, it is an issue which must be resolved.
There is also the issue of the background to the Stevens inquiry. When Mr. Stevens was appointed to head the inquiry into possible security leaks in the security forces to members of loyalist paramilitary organisations, there was considerable hope that a man of such distinction as a policeman in this country would be able to root out what had long been part of folklore in Northern Ireland—the connection between the UDR and members of the paramilitary loyalist forces.
No one was suggesting that the connection applied to every member of the UDR, a body of brave and dedicated men and women who have suffered a great deal at the hands of terrorism, as we sadly witnessed again this week. They have taken over many of the roles from the Army in the fight against terrorism. The role of the UDR is itself a


matter of controversy, but no one must underestimate the courage that many of its members have shown when carrying out their role.
We understand that the Stevens inquiry is likely to be wound up at the end of this week, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. We also understand that the report will shortly be sent to the Chief Constable, which means that the circumstances of the murder of Mr. Sam Marshall will not be examined by Mr. Stevens, even though the original statement by the RUC that his bail arrangements were public knowledge were later withdrawn. Who told the paramilitaries?
Mr. Stevens will also not be able to inquire into the discovery of large quantities of intelligence documents in east Belfast last week in a house usually occupied by a member of the UDR who has gone missing. These matters are only peripheral to the problems of the allegations about unhappiness with the UDR high command, of the disagreements with the RUC, and of the resulting strange developments in which Mr. Terry Loughlin, the respected assistant editor of the Irish News, refused to co-operate further with the Stevens inquiry, following the story of the RUC inner circle, because of statements issued by the RUC press office before he had given his full witness statement to the Stevens inquiry.
Perhaps most important of all is the issue of the chief witness, Brian Nelson, who has been used by the Stevens inquiry. The statement last week in the case of Mr. Gordon Mahafy, the lead story on Northern Ireland BBC news, is of considerable importance. He was charged with the wrongful possession of documents relating to IRA and INLA suspects. Defence counsel said that Brian Nelson had been helping the Stevens inquiry with its inquiries and that he had been a Government agent for several years, having infiltrated the UDR as an agent provocateur. If that allegation is correct and if Mr. Nelson was acting as a double agent, working both for the UDA and for some branch of the security forces—perhaps the RUC—questions arise about his role as chief intelligence officer for the UDA. What operations, if any, were set up as a result of information that he supplied? Did he know of them? Did he partake in any of them? What information about any of them did he give to his handlers and what was their response to any such information? What credence can be placed upon his evidence if any of those cases come to court?
Finally, there is the allegation of Mr. Colin Hall—who is charged with making an RUC uniform available to the UFF—that he was struck by one of the members of the Stevens inquiry team, so the RUC is being investigated by the Stevens inquiry, which is now being investigated by the RUC.
The problems of the Stevens inquiry are highlighted by the story in The Guardian today, which states:
A paramilitary fraud ring has been uncovered operating inside a large army base in Northern Ireland, creaming off nearly £500,000 from under the noses of the security forces.
Paramilitary loyalist groups, believed to belong to the Ulster Defence Association and its offshoot the Ulster Volunteer Force, are said to be involved.
I can understand why the Ministry of Defence wanted to cover up that information in the evidence that was sent to the Public Accounts Committee. However, it is not only a problem for the anti-racketerring unit of the RUC

because it means that, for years, paramilitaries have had access to buildings inside the camp at Ballykelly. They could obtain security information and details about IRA suspects and gain access to maps and plans of the buildings on the camp from the PSA office inside the fence. That is a serious matter, as it impinges on the nature of the Stevens inquiry. In addition, the UDR—which is recruited locally—has many facilities at Ballykelly.
I should be obliged if the Minister would tell us whether any papers on this matter have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Are any past or present members of the security forces involved in these matters? Did they come under the scrutiny of the Stevens inquiry? Were any of the UDR members who were arrested or questioned by the Stevens inquiry team ever stationed at Ballykelly? Despite what the Under-Secretary said in Committee on the Bill to privatise the Property Services Agency—it is responsible for work on MOD establishments in Northern Ireland—will he and his right hon. Friend now insist that Northern Ireland be left outside the scope of that Bill, whether or not it relates to MOD establishments? Evidence was given to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), supplemented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), about how paramilitary frauds work. It is essential that no public work be used as a means to channel funds to paramilitary forces on either side.
There has been considerable controversy about the work of the UDR. I have already said that it is the role of the security forces on the street that will inspire confidence in this legislation. That will come about not through speeches in this place or the amount of support that we give them, but from their day-to-day contact with members of the public.
I fail to understand why it remains impossible for Ministers to give the precise numbers of UDR patrols accompanied by the RUC. Why cannot they be logged, statistics taken and figures published? It is a simple matter and we could then understand the scale of the problem that the RUC and the UDR face in carrying out the undertaking of the first Anglo-Irish Agreement that, wherever possible, Army and UDR patrols would be accompanied by a member of the RUC.

Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for about 16 minutes and has not once mentioned the Provisional IRA. Will he ever get round to that?

Mr. McNamara: I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman gives too much credence to the Provisional IRA. I would rather spend our time looking at the workings of the Act and its relevance to the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland. If I may use the style of the Prime Minister, at the start of our speech we voiced our support for the security forces and saluted them for their bravery. I should have thought that in a democratic assembly it is not necessary to go into what paramilitary and terrorist organisations are doing. It is enough to say that we roundly condemn them. That was implicit in all that I said in my speech which looks at problems involving terrorists from both sides.
We were discussing one of the ways to try to defeat the paramilitaries, including the Provisional IRA, from both sides. One of the methods of doing that is to inspire confidence in the security forces. Another is to try to ensure that when possible the RUC will accompany other


members of the security forces on their patrols. That would demonstrate the primacy of the RUC in all policing matters in Northern Ireland, thereby cutting the ground from under the feet of those who seek to find excuses to support paramilitaries. This is a simple matter and can be done quite easily. The week before last the Minister of State was quick to tell me at Question Time that all Army and UDR patrols are tasked by the RUC. Therefore, he should be able to tell us the number of patrols that are tasked and whether the plain clothes patrol that killed three men outside a bookmakers in Belfast earlier this year was tasked by the RUC.
I have outlined the background against which we are discussing this legislation. It must be evident that we are dealing with an abnormal situation and need abnormal legislation. The question that we must answer is how we approach the legislation and the inference that can be drawn from the legislation that the House proposes. This is emergency abnormal legislation and it is right to discuss it, as we do, every year. We believe that the normal practice should be to assume jury trial as normal and Diplock courts as abnormal. For that reason it is important that there should be contracting in of scheduled offences rather than contracting out. We should look carefully again at some of the rules about the admissibility of evidence and confessions.
I should like to pursue some of the matters to which Lord Colville referred in his short report. The first matter is the use of force in murder cases, and the second is the use of closed-circuit television in detention centres. In 1989 Lord Colville gave his opinion on the matter of the use of lethal force in murder cases and a House of Lords Select Committee recommended action on this point. As the noble Lord says, White Paper Cm. 965 does not disclose whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to act on this proposal. This is not merely a matter for cases involving the security forces, although it is of the utmost importance to them.
The Opposition believe with Lord Colville that the use of excessive force for self defence in the prevention of crime should be capable of amounting to manslaughter. The introduction of this new category would help the security forces in their actions and would also help the perception of the general public about the role of the security forces and their accountability.
Perhaps more important and more immediate, and arising from the experiment announced by the Home Secretary for the taking of tape recordings of evidence in PTA cases, is the proposal by the noble Lord that all interrogations in Northern Ireland at Castlereagh and Armagh should not merely be monitored but that a video record should be kept of them. Despite what the Secretary of State said, that makes eminent sense. I regret that he did not accept the urgency of what Lord Colville said and has again postponed a decision, apparently until 1992.
The argument against tape recordings of terrorist interrogations used to be that it might reveal intelligence sources. That is an interesting argument and might hold some water if it were not for the fact that, once a terrorist has been interrogated, he will almost certainly be heavily debriefed by his friends and will have noted the source of the evidence that the security forces are using. Therefore, that argument does not stand. Even if it did, it would be possible for transcripts to be treated in the way that they are treated in Select Committees where a meeting has been held in secret. Application for a transcript could be made

to the Committee or to a judge in chambers for part of the transcript which, in the opinion of the judge, would reveal delicate intelligence sources to be expunged—provided that that was not fundamental to the bringing of a case against a suspect. By his experiments in two places, the Home Secretary has said that this matter can now be adequately dealt with.
I accept that Lord Colville does not address this matter precisely in his report. However, in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 he deals with the keeping of video tapes of interrogations. Originally closed circuit television was used to keep watch in such matters, because it enabled matters of a disciplinary nature against the police or complaints by defendants to be dealt with. The objection was that brutalisation might take place when somebody was not watching the monitoring screen, or it could be alleged that brutality took place and that the person monitoring the scene turned a Nelson's eye to the television screen.
In the current Colin Hall case allegations have been made that a member of the Stevens inquiry beat or struck Mr. Hall. That is being investigated by the RUC. That matter could have been immediately cleared up one way or the other by a video recording. If the Home Secretary is prepared to have an experiment about transcripts of interrogations, surely the same could be done with video recordings. There could be both a video recording and a tape recording and we would be better able to ensure that the evidence coming before the court was accurate and not obtained under duress. That would also protect the police from unfair accusations.
It is sad and lamentable that nearly 20 years after the introduction of this temporary legislation we are once again debating it. We shall vote against the order, not because we do not accept that Northern Ireland is an abnormal part of our society in terms of law and order and must have special measures, but because we think that the Government have not responded to the recommendations made by the Labour party and by Lord Colville to improve the situation. They do not seem to be properly seized of the fact that it is not legislation alone that improves the situation but the administration of legislation, and confidence in it and in the impartial administration of justice. Those aims are essential and we do not think that the Government have gone far enough in seeking to achieve them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Unlike the Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and the Leader of the Opposition, I am concerned about the Irish Republican Army because the overwhelming number of killings and terrorist incidents are carried out by the so-called Provisional IRA. Statistics quoted by Unionists might be challenged, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North would not want to challenge the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP. In addressing his party conference the hon. Member for Foyle made it clear that in the troubles 44 per cent. of victims had been killed by the IRA and 18 per cent. by other Republican paramilitaries, making 62 per cent. of all killings.
Twenty-seven per cent. of the victims were killed by loyalists, 10 per cent. by the British Army, 2 per cent. by the RUC, and only 0·28 per cent. by the UDR. I always


wonder why such attacks are made on the UDR, when it is responsible for only 0·28 per cent. of the total number of killings in Northern Ireland. I shall return to that point.
Between 1981 and 1988, the number of terrorist incidents for which republicans were responsible totalled 3,739, while the figure for loyalists was 278. If one compares the two figures, it is obvious that the overwhelming number of incidents and killings were the responsibility of the IRA. I condemn killings from both sides, but they must all be put into perspective.

Mr. Flannery: Having condemned tit-for-tat killings, it would be very sad if the argumentation in this House also became tit for tat. Of the three killings that have just occurred in Northern Ireland, two appeared to be the work of loyalist paramilitary terrorists, and the other was apparently the work of the IRA. I agree profoundly with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he says that our struggle is against all killings. I hope that it does not emerge from this debate that that sentiment is not so true as it sounds in a single sentence.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will agree that I, as a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament, have a duty to speak for my constituents. The fear in Northern Ireland must first be measured by those responsible for the vast majority of killings. No right hon. or hon. Member condones any killing. No matter who uses the gun, such killings are to be condemned unequivocally. As the hon. Member for Hillsborough knows, that has always been my attitude. However, in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, I felt that I had to put down a marker at the beginning of the debate.
I want to deal first with the circumstances which have brought about the present deterioration in law and order in Northern Ireland. What lies at the heart of it, why does that problem exist, and why does it continue? I believe that at the root of the problem is the territorial claim made by the Republic of Ireland that it is the legitimate ruler of Northern Ireland. When an IRA man takes the gun, he can say, "I am engaged in a legitimate cause," and he can say it even more now that the Lord Chief Justice of the Republic of Ireland has said that the British Government have no legitimacy and that the Dublin Government have a legitimate duty to do everything in their power to oust the illegitimate British Government and to establish their own jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland.
The House must recognise that until that Berlin wall—which was built not by Unionists or by Ulster Protestants but by the Dublin authorities—is dismantled, there will not be peace in Ireland. That is at the heart of the matter.
When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was reached, it was argued, particularly by members of the Government Front Bench, with great eloquence and force, that a change had taken place and that, for once, the Government of the Republic of Ireland had become convinced that Northern Ireland must remain a part of the United Kingdom. We were told that the agreement set out in article 1 that the status of Northern Ireland was as a part of the United Kingdom. We pointed out at the time and subsequently that there is no mention in article 1 of the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The

words "United Kingdom" do not even appear in that document. However, there is a reference to the status of Northern Ireland.
In the Assembly Committee which was established in Stormont to deal with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, presided over by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), leader of the Ulster Unionists, the Labour Front Bench spokesman was asked whether he believed that the status of Northern Ireland would be changed by the agreement. He answered that of course it has been changed, because no other part of the United Kingdom holds a conference at which members of a foreign jurisdiction meet Government officials from the United Kingdom as equals and pledge to do everything to reach agreement and a consensus policy for a part of the United Kingdom's territory. That is what happened, so let no right hon. or hon. Member try to tell the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement established the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
In the McGimpsey case, on appeal the McGimpsey brothers argued that article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement amounted to an acknowledgement by the Republic that it was not entitled as of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland and that it therefore contravened articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. That was a good legal point to argue, but the highest court in the land made it perfectly clear that there was nothing contrary to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, and that there was no recognition in the agreement that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom—and its legitimate status was denied.
Every right hon. and hon. Member should be aware that the court went on to deal with the legitimacy of the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland and with the duty of the Dublin Government to seek to establish constitutionally its jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can be used by the Dublin Government to proceed along a road that will lead to its attaining the ends of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Down through the history of Northern Ireland, the question of the Republic's jurisdiction has arisen time and again. When it was certain that Northern Ireland would not in any way be betrayed and that its future lay firmly in the hands of its own elected leaders, articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were practically meaningless, but they are no longer meaningless now that the British Government have provided a platform and supplied the machinery for the South to achieve the objectives of articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. That is why the Unionist people are so stirred.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems that in the House of Commons there is no political will to give a total commitment to Northern Ireland? If we were debating Nicaragua or South Africa the Benches would be packed with Members displaying outrage, passion and indignation. But today we are debating the United Kingdom—our own country. The public do not understand why we are so passionate about remote countries but somehow cannot get to grips with the problems in our own nation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that sentiment?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree totally. It is what the Ulster Members have been saying all along. When the Stormont


Parliament was disbanded and the power-sharing Executive came into existence I was told by the then Prime Minister that the trouble was all over.

Mr. Flannery: Has the hon. Gentleman seen him here?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman's colleague has a stick with which to deal with him.
When the power-sharing Executive came into existence the then Prime Minister said that the trouble was all over, that at last there would be peace.
In a speech in this House I said that previous events in Northern Ireland had been a picnic by comparison with the killings that would follow. How right that prophecy turned out to be—and the killings will go on and on until the Government have the guts to deal with the situation.
I am surprised that today the Secretary of State did not say, "I am a defender of Her Majesty's territories, and I say that the Dublin Government have no authority over part of the United Kingdom and no right to claim that they have such authority." The British Government have the power to say to the southern Government, "You must come into the 20th century and stop claiming territorial rights over a part of our territory." If the people of Northern Ireland want, in an election, to express the desire to become a part of the united Ireland, let them do so. As a democrat, I should have to accept that. I do not want it, but I should have to accept it. However, I know that the people of Northern Ireland do not want such an arrangement.
The Government will not even repeat the referendum exercise. They will not say to the people, "Let us have another vote on this issue." The SDLP does not want a vote on it. Nobody wants to put the matter to the test. Why? If there is such a willingness on the part of the people of Northern Ireland to go south—and even among Unionists there are some who seem attracted by the magnetism of the Republic—let us have a referendum. The Secretary of State has the authority to call one immediately. Let the people of Northern Ireland give their decision. We in this House know only too well what the outcome would be. No betting shop would offer odds.
The Government cannot ignore what happened in the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic. The British Government must get to grips with article 1 of their agreement with the Government of the Republic. That agreement is not what it was sold to this Parliament and to the people of Ulster as being. It contains no guarantee about the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maginnis: Perhaps I may draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the terms in which article I of the agreement was defined by senior counsel in the Supreme Court of the Republic. He said:
Now, Mr. O'Flaherty"—
Mr. O'Flaherty was the senior counsel representing the McGimpseys—
referred to Article I, my Lord, headed 'The Status of Northern Ireland'. When one reads that Article, one looks at the status of Northern Ireland, it's not defined at all. It is carefully not defined, my Lord, carefully not defined.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman confirms exactly what I and, indeed, all Unionists have been saying. The finding of the Supreme Court comes as no surprise to any Unionist. In an article in The Times on Saturday, Conor

Cruise O'Brien said that the British Government would ignore that decision at their peril. If the British Government do ignore it, it will become an increasingly serious festering sore. I trust that the Secretary of State will have second thoughts. He has had second thoughts before, and I have congratulated him on that. I hope that, after this debate, he will realise that this is a matter that will not go away.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government sold the Anglo-Irish Agreement to Northern Ireland. Does he agree that we have not bought it, that we see it for the fraud that it is and have constantly rejected it?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have said that the Government had sold the agreement to this House. They certainly did not deceive the people of Northern Ireland—the agreement has not been sold to them. Ministers may go to North Antrim as often as they like and tell people there how wonderful the agreement is. They may do their best to get poor souls to join the new Tory party of Northern Ireland which, we are told, will show the people what Toryism can do for Northern Ireland. When one sees the closed hospitals, the long unemployment queues and the degradation in the Province, one realises that no Northern Ireland person in his senses would vote for the Tory party. That will be made clear at the next election. I would welcome an election tomorrow. I should make it clear that I am talking about present-day Toryism, not Conservatism.

Mr. Barry Porter: What about Harland and Wolff?

Rev Ian Paisley: What was done for Harland and Wolff was what any Government would have done for the shipyard. The hon. Gentleman would have advocated similar action in his own area. However, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman as I have other quarry to kill.
I come now to a matter which is causing great concern. I refer to the consistent conspiracy to blacken the Ulster Defence Regiment. We have seen this conspiracy evolve. The Stevens inquiry was not set up to deal with the leaking of information from the UDR to paramilitaries; it was set up to deal with the leaking of information from the RUC to paramilitaries. The Opposition spokesman did not mention that. But suddenly the whole inquiry changed. Documents that many of us had had for years—an Assembly colleague of mine produced page after page of photographs—were systematically leaked in the press.
Every morning one heard that a reporter from some paper had another document.

Rev William McCrea: Can my hon. Friend confirm that I made such a statement in the Assembly? Members of the RUC took me there and left me home but, to this day, have not asked me where I got the information.

Rev Ian Paisley: I can only say that those policemen must have been very lenient. When I mention in this House any matter on which the RUC seems to think I should not have information, a policeman comes to my door asking, "May we have the document to which you referred?" Indeed, on one occasion I had to appeal to a former


Speaker for protection of my right, as a Member of Parliament, to produce documents whose contents I thought that the public needed to know.
There has been a conspiracy. The "Panorama" programme had one aim—to discredit the whole Ulster Defence Regiment. If members of the UDR are doing things that are wrong, they must be made amenable to the law. Members of British regiments—I refer to "British regiments" not because the UDR is not one but because it is a term that the House knows—on this side of the water have done dastardly deeds, but I have never heard any hon. Member say that a whole regiment should be disbanded, even though some of those deeds were gruesome indeed. Of course, such a regiment should not be disbanded. If a man goes wrong and is dealt with, his regiment should not suffer—others should not be guilty by association.
"Panorama" said that the UDR trained 40,000 Protestants to use a gun. When the UDR was first formed, 20 per cent. of its members were Roman Catholics. The programme did not say that since a fifth of the total membership at one time were Roman Catholics the Government also trained so many thousand Roman Catholics to use a gun. Where does it end? Those men were not trained to use a gun for unlawful purposes; they were members of the Army and were given their training as such. They were not trained as Protestants or as Roman Catholics; they were trained as members of a British regiment.
At the end of the programme, the commentator said that the UDR had been brought into existence to solve the problem but that now it was part of the problem. The gallant members of the UDR take their lives into their hands. On Sunday, I was at a UDR funeral. As I delivered a message in my capacity as leader of the Free Presbyterian church, I looked down and saw one of my members sitting with her three young children, and I thought about people saying, "Your husband was part of the problem." That man took his life into his hands on two counts—first, as a sergeant in the UDR and, secondly, in working for a builder who helped to carry out contracts for the security forces. Statements that that man is part of the problem are deeply resented by the people of Northern Ireland.
The situation has become intolerable, especially for those of us who have to pay the British Broadcasting Corporation and then have that programme shown on our screens. I put our views to Lord Barnett, a former Member. I have been told that a book has been produced containing more than 300 names and that every UDR man has a copy. But that book does not exist. I rang up Mr. Stevens and asked whether he had the book and whether he had seen the man who compiled the "Panorama" programme and taken the book from him. Mr. Stevens said that he could not answer me but had to put me on to the inquiry officer. He said that he was not putting me off and that I could state my case.
Five minutes later, the officer spoke to me and said that he had visited the man who made the programme and asked about the book. I asked whether the adviser had seized it, and he said no and asked whether I knew why. I said, "Of course I know why"—a parliamentarian never asks a question to which he does not know the answer, and it would be foolish to do so. I said that it was a bogus book

and the adviser said, "That is right—I have no authority to confiscate a book that is bogus." The book was waved before millions of people who watched that programme. We are told that every UDR man has a copy of that list of suspected IRA men and that it is given to other men to kill those suspects. The House must face up to this serious matter.
The Secretary of State knows that I am not one to defend him, but I do not believe that any responsible BBC producer should go to the Secretary of State, take nearly an hour of his time, go to the head of the UDR and take an hour of his time and then go straight to Dublin, play the programme to the foreign secretary of another country and ask him to have the last word on it. That is not fair to this country or to the UDR. The UDR does not deserve such treatment.
Until the House faces up to that matter, we shall not come to grips with it. Why does the IRA want to get rid of the UDR? It is because the UDR stands as a bastion against the IRA and all the citizens of Northern Ireland in the areas in which it operates. If members of the UDR did something that they should not have done, they should be dealt with like anyone else, but the whole regiment should not be maligned as it has been. Other matters have been raised which cause concern in the hearts of everyone. All of us want civil and religious liberty. We are all dedicated to that. The two matters that I have raised lie at the foundation of this debate.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Last year, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) began his speech by saying that we were debating the order in the shadow of the gunman. Sadly, we do so again this year. My party offers its sincere sympathy to the families of all the victims of the past week and year. There is nothing—whether membership of the UDR, the fact that a person's work takes him into security bases, the chance that causes one person to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or even membership of an illegal organisation—that can justify murder. That, too, is the unequivocal position of the Ulster Unionist party. Hence we as legislators have a responsibility to those in whom we vest authority to protect our community from such terrorism and to ensure that we provide the means by which people can carry out their tasks within the law. That is our first priority. All other considerations must remain secondary.
Lord Colville recognises this and my party supports his recommendation that the emergency provisions powers must remain in place for the immediate future. I continue to be disappointed, not at the official Opposition's desire to see an early return to normality in Northern Ireland, but by the strange thesis that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North continues to promote to the effect that continuance of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 constitutes a suspension of human rights. The hon. Gentleman will surely agree with me that the greatest infringement of human rights is that perpetrated by the paramilitaries when, acting as judge, jury and executioner, they carry out assassinations in the most arbitrary manner. It is in the nature of our


society that even the basest of killers is entitled to his rights under the law, but that right must never be enhanced at the expense of the innocent victims or of our security forces.
Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who appears to concentrate almost exclusively on what he regards as the deficiencies of our security forces—deficiencies which I do not experience on the ground—I intend to deal with the victims of terrorism and with the innocent community trying to get on with their lives in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the television reporter, John Ware, and to the disgraceful one-sided and biased programme that he produced for "Panorama". When John Ware first came to the Province, he came to see me. He stated unequivocally and unashamedly that he was there to follow up the Stevens inquiry and to expose the UDR, in so far as he alleged it was involved in the leaking of information to paramilitary organisations. He had his mind made up. I gave him an hour of my time and he recorded three or four cassettes containing what I had had to tell him about the UDR. As right hon. and hon. Members know, I speak with some personal experience, having served with the regiment for 11 years. After all that, I was horrified by what he said as he turned round to leave my home. I said, "I hope that you will be objective in your treatment of what I have said, although obviously you can't carry all that you have recorded." His reply was, "Well, we'll try—but you're not going to like it." Those were John Ware's exact words and they can scarcely enhance his reputation as an objective journalist. But why should we criticise John Ware when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North concentrated almost entirely on diminishing the security forces? There was no objectivity in what he said and no acknowledgment of the plight of the people whom I represent or of those represented by the Ulster Democratic Unionist party.
I have used the terms "emergency powers" in referring to the order. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, I find it no easy task to differentiate that which falls within the compass of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and that which comes within the scope of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Nor has the Police and Criminal Evidence Order (Northern Ireland) 1988 made it any easier for the layman to identify the relevant legislation. That is why the Ulster Unionists feel that it is time to rationalise the legislation. When Lord Colville brings forward his major report, the emergency provisions Act should be allowed to lapse and a number of its provisions should then be incorporated in the prevention of terrorism Act, which should then cease to be temporary.
In its document "Emergency Laws Now", which has been presented to Lord Colville for consideration, the Ulster Unionist party makes a number of recommendations which are worth mentioning at this stage. Part I of the emergency provisions Act 1978, as amended by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987—the provisions relating to scheduled offences, and the court, the mode of trial and the evidence in scheduled offence cases—should be inserted into the prevention of terrorism Act. The Lord Chancellor could be given a power, by order requiring parliamentary approval, to bring that part of the Act into operation for any defined area for a defined period. In addition, the Lord Chancellor could direct that that part should apply to a particular case. There is little

doubt that such a provision would be beneficial in cases such as that of the Birmingham Six because, irrespective of one's overall opinion of the matter, the view is widely held that, in the wake of such an atrocity, there must be less than an even chance of being able to find a completely impartial jury.
Part II of the emergency provisions Act 1978 and part II of the 1987 Act, dealing with arrest, search, detention and the conditions of detention, are largely supplementary to the powers in part III of the prevention of terrorism Act and could easily be integrated in that part.
The provision in part III of the 1978 Act which deals with proscription and public order matters could be consolidated with those in the prevention of terrorism Act. For the first time in years, we could then produce a uniform list of proscribed organisations. The public order provisions would surely be better included in existing public order legislation.
The length of time for which accused persons are held in custody before being brought to trial is often criticised, although it is more likely to arise from the unavailability of a particular defence counsel chosen by the accused than from undue delay in the court's timetable. But the power to make regulations governing the time limits for proceedings in scheduled offence cases should still be retained as a safeguard. The present classification of scheduled offences and their mode of trial—before a single judge—should also be retained. There is no evidence that the Diplock courts, as they are called, have caused problems—the pressure for change has had more to do with political propaganda than with justice. The allegations concerning the Birmingham Six and others bear that out because, as the House will recall, those cases were brought before a jury.
Again, it is merely political gesturing to call for three-judge courts, as it has yet to be proved that there is a need based on the furtherance of justice. Cases going to appeal—proportionally, there are few that do—go before three judges. The practical difficulty of providing three-judge courts for all Diplock cases would result in an unacceptable backlog in the court system. Even if it were desirable to increase the number of judges, we should still have to ask whether justice is better served by having our most experienced legal brains on the Bench or below the Bench. I think that there is a happy medium. As judges must he appointed from the ranks of senior counsel, it is perhaps better justice to ensure that the accused has a reasonable choice of good and experienced defence counsel.
When we debated the prevention of terrorism Act a few days ago, I was somewhat saddened by the fact that there was so little acknowledgment of the suffering of the community. Too much sympathy was expressed then, as it has been today, for those who perpetrate violence against the community. It is perhaps because the legislation that we are debating is designed to constrain those with evil intent that we tend to forget the victims and consider the legislation purely in terms of how it relates to the evil men in the community.
Is there real evidence that the emergency powers legislation is counter-productive, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has alleged, or that it is unnecessary in as much as it fails to accomplish what it sets out to achieve? I believe that without the emergency provisions legislation and the prevention of terrorism legislation we would be tying the hands of our security


forces. The legislation does not give and never has given our security forces a free reign, but without it they would not be able to deal with the problems that we face from international and local terrorism.
We constantly hear the number of people detained for questioning being compared with the number of people actually charged with terrorist offences. Indeed, that point was raised by an Opposition Member in the debate on terrorism a few days ago. I, too, am bothered that there is such a differential between the number questioned and the number charged—not because I believe that the wrong people are being detained for questioning, but because too many terrorists are beating the system.
In my constituency at the moment, a well-known terrorist who has been associated with the Provisional IRA for a long time can still organise murder and get away with it. He is known to have arranged the attack which was to have been made against my wife and myself on 11 January this year. Here I acknowledge the bravery and efficiency of the RUC, whose good work on that occasion frustrated the terrorists and probably saved my life and that of my wife. Sadly, a lorry driver—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—who was murdered within half a mile of that incident on Thursday last—was not so fortunate. He was murdered at the behest of the same villain. I should be happy to ensure that the Secretary of State knows the name of the person to whom I am referring, but I have no doubt that he already knows the name of that arch-villain and conspirator in the murder of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East.

Mr. Flannery: What the hon. Gentleman has just said must alarm us all deeply. He has said that he knows that that person is guilty. It would seem to be an ordinary thing in these extraordinary circumstances that if one knew that evidence should be put before the proper authorities who would take the proper steps. That surely should be done instead of simply saying that someone is guilty and leaving it at that. Instead of the name being given to the Secretary of State—I do not object to that—it should be given to the proper police authorities.

Mr. Maginnis: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is so naive as to believe that the police and the community at large do not already know the identity of that person. Unfortunately, the problem over the past 20 years has been that it is not possible to deal with terrorists effectively and completely within the normal civil law. There is a great difficulty because witnesses are intimidated and fear pervades the community, especially the community in which that individual lives. No one is willing to come forward and give evidence because it would make the provider of that evidence the next target. We have faced that problem for so many years and the House has shown itself unable or unwilling to grapple with it.
I wish now to consider Executive detention, or internment as it is known. My party is disturbed that Lord Colville, for whom we have considerable regard, may be considering the ending of that provision. While we acknowledge that no Government have had the courage to implement such a measure, even on the most selective basis, we are convinced that it should remain an option.
We are convinced that Governments should continu-ally face this challenge: are they more concerned with the terrorists or with the victims of terrorism? It is morally wrong that a terrorist such as the man to whom I have referred should be able to continue to thumb his nose at the law of the land and to organise—and at times participate in—the continuation of the murders which so diminish our community. The greater good of the community should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Where is the justice in that?
The Government have a responsibility to protect the hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community against the few hundred active terrorists from both sides of the community. I make no distinction, nor do I wish to argue the rights or wrongs of any side. However, it is possible to do more to assist the security forces and to help those who, at terrible cost, have stood for so long and so steadfastly as a bastion between us and the terrorists. The introduction of identity cards is one of the simplest ways in which, without having to seek any derogation from a European body, we could make the task of our police a little easier.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the Stevens inquiry and to the attack on the UDR. Having served for more than 11 years with that regiment and having commanded men within it, I can state that I never experienced a complaint against any man under my command, let alone a complaint that was upheld. Therefore, the derogatory terms that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North all too often employs were a personal insult to me as well as to the many good and honest men who have served the country well and truly over many years, many of whom—including many of my best friends—have lost their lives serving the community and standing between the terrorists and ordinary people.
We accepted that the Stevens inquiry was necessary, because we were told that that was the case, and we certainly wanted leaks to be cleared up, but we did not expect such dangerous naivety when 28 members of the regiment were swooped on early one Sunday morning and taken in for questioning—and that was after certain sound and sensible voices had persuaded the inquiry that it should not opt for almost 100. That was the original intention. To what extent was Stevens acting on sound information?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that there have been dreadful repercussions for those men, who had to be released almost immediately because they were completely innocent? They have had to leave their districts and their families. They have been attacked and intimidated. A cloud of darkness, which should not be put upon them, has been put on them by that action.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The majority of those men were released almost immediately, after having had their homes surrounded and being taken off like common criminals. There is no excuse for endangering not just those men but their families. Many of them have had to move house. Right hon. and hon. Members know that one cannot do that at a profit. They are young men with families who need every last shilling. They have to move away from family support. If


their wives went out to work, the children could stay with aunts, uncles or grandparents, but that family support has been wiped out.
Irrespective of how efficient the Stevens inquiry turns out to be, and irrespective of its report, I shall always be left with a hitter taste in my mouth because innocent people have been victimised for the sake of political expediency. Some have been charged with the most ridiculous offences—such as having two extra rounds of ammunition for a personal protection weapon. If somebody came to my home, I could not guarantee that I would not have two extra rounds of ammunition for my personal protection weapon. There is no danger that those extra rounds, any more than the rounds that I legally possess, will fall into the hands of anyone who wishes to commit a crime against any member of the community. It is sad fact that one bungling by the Stevens team has meant that anything good which might emanate from the inquiry will be undermined or overshadowed by the repercussions of what happened on that Sunday morning.
Any legislation is only as good as the means of enforcing it. The continuing high rate of deaths and injuries is unacceptable to many hon. Members, but it is heartbreaking for those who have to endure it daily. Therefore, I urge hon. Members, especially those who wish to vote against the order, to examine their motives and to ask themselves what hope there is for democracy if we do not meet our obligations to the innocent members of the community. Nothing enshrined in the order should give offence to any right-thinking person, either here or on the streets of Northern Ireland. If, for some reason that I fail to understand, some hon. Members at present consider that they cannot vote for the order, I hope that in the interests of those who may still become the victims of terrorism they will not vote against it.
I look forward to the time when we have a single piece of legislation to deal with the problem of terrorism, and I commend such a course to Lord Colville. My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and I hope that all such legislation will soon become unnecessary. In the meantime, my party supports the order.

Mr. Julian Amery: The reasoned argument of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the more vibrant eloquence of his reverend friend the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) deserve a better congregation. So does the subject of the debate. It is a disgrace that our Benches should be so empty as we return to this grim subject.
Of course, I shall support the Government tonight, but it will be with a sense of growing frustration. We have now had to renew the order for nearly 20 years without seeing any daylight at the end of the tunnel. The statistics on death and wounded oscillate from year to year, rather like a malaria fever chart, but there is still no sign of any cure.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid the security forces a well-deserved tribute in which most hon. Members joined wholeheartedly. They have done and are still doing a fantastic job. But it looks as though they will continue to need to do it. My right hon. Friend was right to say that we are against terrorism in any form, either orange or green. It is the duty of hon. Members to uphold the law and it is my right hon. Friend's duty to enforce it. At the same time, given that hon. Members mould

opinion, we must make a distinction between different kinds of terrorism. I say that after careful thought. We must remember that the increase in loyalist terrorism is a reflection of the Government's failure to defeat the IRA. We must in our hearts, although not in law, make a distinction between those who fight to overthrow the Queen's Government and those who, though wrongly, take up arms to fight against those who are trying to overthrow that Government. We must have that point in mind when forming opinion, if not in the administration of the law.
The speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) shocked me more than I had expected. It was an attempt to indict the security forces, to drive a wedge between the UDR and the RUC, and to attack the security forces in every possible way. There was no attempt to balance his speech, which is understandable perhaps, bearing in mind present circumstances, by reference to the Libyan connection with the IRA, to mention only one matter. The hon. Gentleman's speech will have given comfort to the IRA and those who sympathise with it. It left me with the feeling that, if public opinion polls are right and there is to be a Labour Government, it will be a very sad day when the hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: My future position is not in my gift but in that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that one should not be anxious that the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland should be seen to uphold the law impartially on the occasions when members of either community fall from grace? I have already paid tribute to the heroism and gallantry of the armed forces, as the right hon. Gentleman would have heard in my speech. Is he saying that such matters should not be of concern to us all and be examined by the House and the elected representatives of the nation?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently experienced in politics to know that there are ways of saying things and ways of not saying them. I shall read his words carefully, but it was my impression that his words would bring comfort to the IRA more than they will enable the House to form an objective judgment on the matters that he discussed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported some weeks ago as saying that we could not expect to win the war against the IRA by military means. I thought at the time that those words were not the happiest that he could have used, but I see his argument. Successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have sought political solutions. My God, we have tried hard enough. The dissolution of Stormont was a political step. It did not bring us much good. Sunningdale was a political step. It failed lamentably. The Prior assembly was, as some of us predicted, a complete failure. Now we have the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He ducked somewhat the questions put to him on the Dublin Supreme Court interpretation of the agreement. It leaves me with the feeling that we have bought a dud chip. We need some clarification. I do not see


how we can reconcile the judgment of the Supreme Court with the interpretation that we place on article 1 of the Agreement.
So far all our political initiatives over a long period have failed. Yet one which has been consistently suggested by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and with some support from the Ulster Unionist party has always been brushed aside. It is the simple expedient that, instead of dealing with Ulster matters by Order in Council—which makes them virtually undiscussable—the House should treat legislation in much the same way as Scottish legislation by some Committees. I would leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister to devise the best way of doing so.
Another political initiative would be a return to relatively ordinary local government in the Province. We are told that if that happened there would be discrimination on a great scale. I do not know if it has ever been tried. The Secretary of State would have sufficient powers to suspend a local authority if there were discrimination. Of course, there is no great danger here. Any such move would be seen as abandoning the attempt to return to devolved government. But every attempt to return to devolved government has proved a fiasco. How long can we continue attempting to do something that apparently cannot be done? Would my right hon. Friend be right to attempt it?
It is only if my right hon. Friend adopts the course of a return to ordinary local government that he will give the necessary signal to both communities that there is no question of this Government, or any Government that we would support, moving towards a union of the North and South. We would then say in a clear and categorical way that we stand for the union of the kingdom. That is not yet understood or appreciated. After the judment of the Supreme Court in Dublin, it is hard to believe.
My right hon. Friend is the fourth or fifth Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has opted for an attempt to create devolved government. Let there be a time limit in his mind when this experiment should be abandoned. We really cannot go on like this.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall say only a few words about the order because several hon. Members wish to speak, not least Northern Irish Members. It will be a matter of regret to me, if the order is passed, that the principles of our system of justice will not be universal throughout the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding that regret, I shall vote for the order and I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to do likewise. I shall give them that advice and vote in that way because I believe that the circumstances in Northern Ireland justify that course of action. I shall vote for the order with a sense of reservation and regret—reservation that universality is not possible, and regret that there appears to be no immediate prospect of its coming to pass.
It is right that we should have to renew these provisions every year. Every year it is incumbent on us to ask ourselves whether they are really necessary. When I ask myself that question at this juncture, I have little difficulty in answering in the affirmative. It is clear that normality, as we understand it on the mainland of the United

Kingdom, is still absent from Northern Ireland. None of us could have been other than affected by the moving way in which the Northern Ireland Members who have already spoken described their personal experiences and the sense of grief which they, and, of course, the communities that they represent, experience, sometimes almost daily. Perhaps that is what makes these powers, which in other circumstances might seem draconian, justified at this time.
I hope that the House will accept that we should not seek to maintain these powers for a moment longer than they appear to be justified. They represent a serious incursion into the rights that citizens of the United Kingdom should normally expect. We should tolerate them grudgingly. We should never embrace them enthusiastically. We should work to withdraw them at the earliest date possible. Nor should we assume that the system of justice which the powers embrace cannot be improved or changed.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that the powers that the order confers are at least worthy of reconsideration in four separate aspects. In doing that I am aware that I may be adopting a position which is contradictory to that of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
For example, internment is a procedure which, although rarely, indeed currently never, used, remains a source of great political inflammation. If we believe that the rule of law is gradually being imposed, albeit in difficult circumstances, to maintain the possibility of internment is to embrace a policy of desperation. Internment can never be a long-term solution. It is only of short-term value. It is our duty carefully to consider whether that procedure will in the long term most speedily bring about a solution to the problems in Northern Ireland, which the vast majority of people in the country, and, indeed, in the House, wish to be brought about.
I come now to what are called the Diplock courts. As one who has practised at the Bar for more than 20 years, I have come to realise that there is no such thing as judicial infallibility. In the Diplock courts, a single judge has to determine not only questions of law but sometimes difficult questions of credibility—who is to be believed and who is not be be believed. In that regard, I cannot but think that a court of three is much more likely to be able to reach an informed judgment than a court of one. I believe that there should now be some acceptance of the view that trial by jury should be the norm and that it should not be taken away unless causes of why that should be so can be shown.
I come to the topic of the periods of remand in custody with the benefit—if it may be so described—of the Scottish experience. For almost 100 years we have had the 110-day rule, which means that any trial against a person who has been remanded in custody must be commenced within 110 days of the remand. As I have said, that has operated in Scotland for about 100 years—and with great success. It has provided a protection for the accused, and has been a means of ensuring that prosecution is effected swiftly and efficiently. Although I understand that to suggest that it can be introduced simply by inserting a clause into some legislation would be facile, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to a form of such a rule that would reduce extended periods of remand in custody.
I turn finally to the video-taping of interviews. My professional experience, in which I have both prosecuted and defended people charged with serious crimes,


although never with crimes of terrorism, leads me to the view that often the only available peg on which a defence can hang something is to challenge the propriety of what took place in a closed room in the presence only of policemen, whose record is in their notebooks, which are frequently made up after the event. I have seen people acquitted who should never have been acquitted simply because the mere fact of a suspicion about the events that took place while they were in the exclusive custody of the police was enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Therefore, such a contemporary record is as much for the protection of the police—and for the efficient carrying out of prosecutions—as it is for the protection of the accused person.
Working with the powers that the order contains and confirms, I believe that improvement is still possible. Indeed, it is desirable if confidence in the legal system of Northern Ireland is to be enhanced. Confidence in that system will be the best assistance towards a return to the life of normality which the Province previously enjoyed and which we, in the mainland, take for granted.

Mr. Ian Gow: I welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Every right hon. and hon. Member who sits on this side of the House will vote in favour of the order.
Reluctantly, I agree with the conclusion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) about the speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Everybody knows that the hon. Gentleman would wish to give no aid or comfort to those who believe in terror, but I reluctantly share my right hon. Friend's judgment that the hon. Gentleman's speech will give aid and comfort to the IRA. I shall have no hesitation in voting for the order.
I turn to an aspect of the debate that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that the most important single factor in prolonging terrorism in Northern Ireland was uncertainty about Northern Ireland's constitutional future. I believe that to be the case. Everybody knows that the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is that there should be a united island of Ireland—united by consent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State claims to believe in the union, but I want to explain to him why it is perceived in Northern Ireland—and not in Northern Ireland alone—that there is some equivocation about his position and that of Her Majesty's Government.
The judgment in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland last week has done nothing to diminish the doubts that are felt about the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the Union. On 5 November 1985 Her Majesty's Government entered into an agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic. The Irish Republic is the only country that lays claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. That claim is made in the most solemn form possible—in articles 2 and 3 of the written constitution of the Republic. Thus, by virtue of the agreement of 15 November 1985, Her Majesty's Government conferred a place of special privilege upon the only country with a constitution that lays claim to part of Her Majesty's dominions.
May I give an analogy? No analogy is perfect, and I do not claim that this one is. Let us suppose that Germany laid claim to the two French departements of Alsace and Lorraine. Let us suppose that among the German-speaking people of Alsace and Lorraine were some who wished to be severed from the French republic and joined with Germany. Let us suppose that, over the years, terrorists had come from Germany into Alsace and Lorraine, murdered French people living there, and then returned to Germany. Let us suppose further that the people of Alsace and Lorraine had believed that the German police were not always as enthusiastic as they might be in seeking to apprehend those who had come into France, murdered and returned to Germany. Would it be conceivable that in those circumstances the French Government would confer a place of special privilege upon Germany, giving Germany the right to put forward views and proposals about how those two French departements were to be governed? Would it not be even more inconceivable that such an arrangement would be made between France and Germany if the German constitution laid claim to two French departements?
For those who believe in the Union, the idea—and the Government's decision—to make a treaty with the Irish Republic when the Irish Republic was failing to withdraw articles 2 and 3 of its constitution was inconceivable to many Unionists. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows full well what happened. He knows that the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, saw that danger and asked the Irish negotiators, "Would you please remove articles 2 and 3 of your constitution?" My right hon. Friend then said, "If you, the Irish, were to do that, you would make it easier for me to sell this agreement to the Unionists." As my right hon. Friend knows, the Dail cannot alter the constitution; that can be done only by referendum. The Irish Government said, "We are willing to ask our people, by referendum, to remove articles 2 and 3, but upon one condition—that we should have a Minister resident in Belfast." That was too much, even for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
We are put in this further difficulty by last week's decision of the Supreme Court, but there is a way in which my right hon. Friend can get out of it. Would it be possible for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to be every bit as unequivocal about the Union as Ministers who serve in the Scottish and Welsh Offices who adopt a different tone and language? My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have said again and again from the Treasury Bench and outside this place that Northern Ireland will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until a majority of its people decide otherwise.
That is not the language used by either the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is not what they say. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, shortly to leave the Welsh Office, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland speak at by-elections. Whenever we have a by-election in Wales or Scotland, the most natural thing in the world is for the Secretary of State to speak in support of the Conservative candidate. Mercifully that which we have failed to do in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend and even other Ministers will shortly have to do. [Laughter".] My hon. Friends laugh. Certainly they will.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have yet to see that.

Mr. Gow: Mercifully my right hon. and hon. Friends will be obliged to do that.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I have a simple question: how could a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland campaign for a Conservative candidate in East Belfast when the Conservative association there wants integration and the Secretary of State says that he is against it?

Mr. Gow: The Conservative associations in Northern Ireland are anticipating a forthcoming change in Government policy. [Laughter.] However surprising it may be to the right hon. Gentleman, many of Her Majesty's Ministers have been willing to come to Eastbourne to speak in my support, although I am in respectful disagreement with the present policies being pursued by Northern Ireland Ministers. It is mercifully possible for there to be a Conservative candidate at a by-election who does not agree with official Conservative policy on every matter. If anybody doubts the truth of that, I remind them that my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were Conservative candidates at the general election. I do not wish to be diverted, so I shall return to my main theme.
The present Treasury Bench line is to say that Northern Ireland will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until a majority of its people decide otherwise. I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say, "I believe in the Union. I will do all in my power to maintain and strengthen it. I will continue to argue against all people who wish to diminish or dilute the Union." As a Scotsman speaking about Scotland, even I would say that if at the end of the day the people of Scotland over time and by a large, or even not-so-large, majority wished to sever themselves from this kingdom, the Queen could have no unwilling subjects. I beg my right hon. Friend to think about that aspect of the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman carry the argument further? The people in Northern Ireland have not been given the right to decide a change in their status. Their status was changed under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but they were given no opportunity through a referendum to say aye or no to that agreement.

Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that the status of the people of Northern Ireland was not changed by the agreement of 15 November 1985. I believe that their status was changed. Furthermore, I believe that we cannot govern successfully one part of the kingdom differently from the rest, save with the consent of a majority of the people who are to be governed differently. That consent to be governed differently is unobtainable from the people of Northern Ireland.
We can send a signal to friend and foe alike by following the recommendation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. It is nearly 11 years since Airey Neave was assassinated. With his death the policy which he had fashioned and to which he had secured the agreement of the shadow Cabinet died also. Airey Neave was shadow Secretary of State from 12 February 1975 to his assassination on 30 March 1979—for more than four years. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will confirm, he worked closely with the right hon. Gentleman. It was with his assent that the words that appeared in the 1979 Conservative manifesto appeared.
We have not attempted to govern Northern Ireland as closely as may be to the way in which the rest of the kingdom is governed. The longer we continue to govern it differently, the easier it will be perceived to be to prise Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. There are differences among Unionists about whether we should have a devolved assembly, or what I call administrative devolution, which means conferring modest additional powers on the 26 district councils and establishing some sort of regional or county council. I say that although I have an increasing will to diminish the number of tiers of local government, but I let that pass.
We should follow the policy which Airey Neave fashioned after so much toil and study. We should give a much more ringing commitment to the Union. We most certainly should say to nationalists in Northern Ireland that we respect their position and shall protect it. We shall give them, provided that they are constitutional nationalists, precisely that equality of treatment under the law that we give to nationalists in Wales and Scotland. We shall protect all of their legitimate interests under a just law and do all in our power to eliminate such discrimination as there may be against those who hold nationalist convictions. However, it is deeply divisive to give to the Government of a foreign power, notably the Government of the only foreign power that lays claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, the task of representing nationalists in dealings with Her Majesty's Ministers. Nationalists should be represented by the four nationalist Members who have been elected, three of whom have taken their seats in this House. It is deeply divisive to say that the Irish Republic shall have the task of representing nationalists.
This debate has given the House, although too few hon. Members, an opportunity to look not only at the important issue of the emergency powers but at ways in which through political change and a change of political language we may be able to bring to the Province the peace, stability and reconciliation which all decent men are striving to attain.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As always, I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I suspect, my hon. Friends who sit on the Conservative Benches, I am delighted to be able to express our appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's deep understanding of the problems with which we have to contend. I do not believe that it is disrespectful to add the following comment—would to God many other Members of this honourable House had the same depth of understanding.
In common with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I well remember the determination of the late Airey Neave to introduce to Northern Ireland something which might not have given everyone all that they wanted but which would at least have been a beginning in a practical sense. He was determined to press on with that. I have previously quoted words spoken the day before he was murdered which left me in no doubt as to his determination to carry out what until that time had been the approved policy of the Conservative shadow Cabinet. It is a sad reflection that his successors who took over as the ministerial team in the Northern Ireland Office under the new Government were told bluntly, "Sorry—we cannot do that because of commitments entered into". For a variety of reasons that


is a sobering thought. I know that I carry the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) on this because he has seen the seamier side of politics and knows how improper influences can be brought to bear.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne provided us with some encouragement by reminding us that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to put forward proposals from his side of the table at the Anglo-Irish Conference. It is not a common occurrence, but presumably it can be done. The contracting parties, the Secretary of State and his co-chairman, Mr. Collins, are pledged to make determined efforts to reach agreement on any proposal put forward. The Secretary of State should oblige his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, and all of us, by putting forward a reasonable proposal in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, simply suggesting that Dublin Ministers set about removing the offending articles 2 and 3 from their constitution. Having done that, the Secretary of State could sit back and watch as Mr. Collins made determined efforts from his side of the table to reach agreement on that reasonable proposal. I am sure that we would not be disappointed.
Our failure as a nation to eradicate terrorism is due to our unwillingness to recognise terrorism as a long-term challenge. The present Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary. said in March 1989 referring to the IRA:
They are just professional killers … No political solution will cope with that. They just have to be extirpated.
Irish terrorism can claim to be the pioneer of murder for political ends. The present 20-year campaign is rather more sophisticated than its predecessors. I derive no pleasure from repeating the warning that I gave to the House in my maiden speech in 1971, when I explained that Northern Ireland was then seeing the first demonstration of urban guerrilla warfare in western Europe. That demonstration was followed by repeat performances in most western nations but, somehow or other, those nations developed the technique to snuff out their indigenous terror gangs—partly through single-minded determination on the part of the Governments concerned and partly through a courageous refusal to make concessions to the aims of terrorists. Unfortunately, the aims of terrorists are usually shared by others who would not stoop to use terrorism otherwise.
United Kingdom Governments have, unfortunately, all too often taken the opposite course. By steadily giving ground to terrorists and their rescue brigades—an important part of the conundrum—they have prolonged the agony and have helped to cause the deaths of no fewer than 2,800 citizens of Northern Ireland and members of the Army serving there. The tragedy is that the Government know the error of their ways because their own Foreign Secretary told them that no political solution could cope, and that the terrorists had to be extirpated. What pressure, what malign influence, holds the Government back from doing what at last one of their number knows to be their duty?
The key to success in the battle against terrorism is the denial of the expectation of victory. Even the most dedicated idealist will be reluctant to sacrifice his life for a lost cause. Republican hopes of success had all but faded by the late 1970s. Some Opposition Members will understand very well what I am talking about—the degree of stability established by the late 1970s. From 1979 and throughout the 1980s, however, a constant stream of flawed initiatives rekindled hopes in the breasts of

terrorists, as the right hon. Member for Pavilion reminded us. The fluid situation developed by such pot-stirring experiments encouraged terrorists on both sides to believe that there was something in it for them.
It is true that the IRA condemned the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it did not go far enough—it said that it was only a half-way house. We also said that, only it was the other way round. Though it was a half-way house, it provided a terrific boost to the IRA, particularly in the light of the words of Her Majesty's Government at the signing ceremony at Hillsborough in 1985. Those were terrible words:
We entered into this agreement because we were not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence.
On other occasions I have illustrated how those words were decoded—an Enigma device was not needed—in the brigade headquarters of the IRA. Those words could mean only one thing to the IRA, "Aha—here we have a Government who have reached the end of their tether; they have said that they are not prepared to tolerate continuing violence, so let us murder another 100 citizens and get it all instead of just a half-way house".
Again, the IRA was quick enough to spot that the Anglo-Irish Agreement side-stepped the de jure position of Northern Ireland. In the aftermath of the signing of the agreement we did our best, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne, to enlighten fellow right hon. and hon. Members, but on that occasion they were blinded—I give them that excuse, although they have not made it—by glossy labels saying "Peace", "Stability" and "Reconciliation". Who in his right mind would want to vote against that? We knew, of course, that the words were not real.
Today the Secretary of State has said honestly that he is faced with two conflicting de jure claims. The draftsmen of the Anglo-Irish Agreement realised that all too well and cleverly side-stepped the issue. They invented article 1 of the agreement, which is said to respect the rights of the majority, after a fashion. The judgment of the Irish Supreme Court, however, demolished article 1 because it says that a claim to a united island of Ireland is what it calls a "constitutional imperative"—so imperative that every Dublin representative, be he a member of the Government, of the Dail or a member of the Dublin delegation attending the inter-parliamentary body which has just been established, is bound by it to achieve the reintegration of the national territory of the whole island not, this time, qualified by the words
wish of a majority … in Northern Ireland.
It is an overriding demand and requirement, which binds him in honour to achieve that at all costs—regardless, but not necessarily in physical defiance, of the democratically-expressed wishes of the majority of people living in Northern Ireland.
Some 20 years ago, the United Kingdom started to export a type of terrorism to Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and other hon. Members have expressed the hope in the debate that the day will come when the powers that we are considering will no longer be required. To a certain extent, I share that hope, but I fear that international terrorism may continue to exist in one form or another for decades.
We have all watched with a degree of admiration the vast demonstrations in eastern Europe which have brought such dramatic changes and have had some


dramatic successes, but we should be fooling ourselves if we thought that it would stop there. Democracy will merely transfer power from one element to another in those eastern European countries. Admittedly, it will transfer power through some form of democratic process, although that might be imperfect to begin with, but in every eastern European country a tiny element of the population—perhaps 4 or 5 per cent.—will flatly refuse to accept the majority democratic rule. They will not have forgotten the lesson of how easy it is to exploit what has become known in eastern Europe as "people power".
The tendency to exploit grievances has been all too apparent in this country, even in the past week. I do not make the mistake, as some people do, of tarring the Labour party with the same brush—they probably regret as much as the rest of us the fact that a ruthless minority, determined to get their own way, to subvert democracy in the House and in this island, are exploiting certain grievances that we need not discuss today. Unfortunately, the House may still need to provide a model of how democracy can be defended in eastern European countries. We shall have to give an example of how a country can be "made safe for democracy." We need a standard, permanent, simple and unified code of security regulations, which I hope would be vetted and scrutinised by a rather better system than our annual debate in the House, as sometimes that annual debate is not particularly helpful.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It is almost 11 years since I was first elected to the House. During that time the nation has had many crises and there have been emergencies of many kinds. I think that other hon. Members who have lived through the experience of those emergencies know that usually there is a sense of urgency among hon. Members throughout the House.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who came in for the best part of a minute to tell us how few people were in the Chamber and then absented himself for the remainder of the debate. He said that there should be a passion and a feeling of indignation about the emergency that we are dealing with. Having been through the other emergencies, I do not feel the same sense of urgency, passion or indignation in the House today that there has been on other occasions and which there should be on this occasion.
Are the people of the Falklands more important to the House than the people of Northern Ireland? More people have died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism than were killed during the Falklands crisis, and yet the House does not show the same urgency and does not accord to Northern Ireland the importance that it should.
Instead of meeting to consider emergency legislation, we just go through what has become a ritual. I think that this ritual is different in one respect from some of the others over the past 13 years, because of the absence of the late Harold McCusker. He contributed fully and passionately to the debates. As a representative of a border constituency, he knew only too well the destructive power of the Provisonal IRA, and he knew of the need for emergency measures to be taken against it. Knowing the

circumstances that surrounded him, he left a message to his constituents to be read to them after his death. I think we should listen to his words in the House and take warning from them:
I shall carry to my grave with ignominy the sense of the injustice that I have done my constituents down the years—when, in their darkest hours, I exhorted them to put their trust in the British House of Commons which one day would honour its fundamental obligations to them to treat them as equal British citizens.
Mr. McCusker had been confident, as I was confident during my early years in politics, that our constituents could be content that the watchful eye and the strong arm of Britain would be looking over them. He and I felt secure in the knowledge that they would protect Northern Ireland against injustice and wrong.
In all my years in politics, the sense of impatience that I felt and my confidence that one day the British Government would come to put right all of those wrongs—both in the constitutional relationship and in the security relationship—have given way to a feeling of impotence. I do not see a desire to defeat terrorism in any of the actions of the Government. The emergency provisions legislation simply marks time. It is a reaction to terrorists, not a vigorous pursuit of terrorism.
Almost 3,000 people have been butchered in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. Those killings have not discriminated against people because of religion, sex, or social strata. Because Northern Ireland is such a small community, everyone has felt the impact.
More than 30,000 people have been maimed or mutilated in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. Billions of pounds have been lost through subversion. However, all the advice we get is to be calm and cool headed—almost compliant—when we deal with these issues. Our security forces are left to operate against a wartime situation under peacetime conditions.
I join hon. Members who have criticised the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for his contribution to the debate. Despite the kind words for the security forces—and there were some—the burden of the speech was critical of the security forces. Would that the hon. Gentleman had spent time criticising the Provisional IRA. Coming from someone with his background, that would have been helpful, and it might have had some influence on people who might support the Provisional IRA. Instead, the weight of his time and effort was spent putting down the security forces.
That does not just happen only here. Hon. Members have referred to the Stevens inquiry. Its whole emphasis has been directed away from its original purpose, which was to look into the divulging of certain information arising from a police station at Dunmurry, towards putting the spotlight on the UDR. That has a political purpose—to undermine the regiment. The "Panorama" programme played its full part; so, too, did John Ware, whose reputation I give nothing for, having had experience of him in the past. That was exactly the sort of programme that I would expect from that sort of person.
The UDR is in every way in the front line of the battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is the chief target of the IRA, because its members know the terrorists and the terrain in which they operate. The Ulster Defence Regiment is owed a deep debt of gratitude by the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom. Its soldiers have acted with fortitude and courage. More than


220 of them—serving soldiers and former members—have been killed as a result of terrorism. Unlike other regiments in the British Army, members of the UDR do not face death only when on patrol or on operations. Because they live in the community they face death coming out of work, or leaving or going to recreational activities—even after they leave the regiment.
I want to issue a word of warning about any future change in this legislation. I know from having spoken to Lord Colville that considerable pressure—from the Labour party and from the SDLP and others in Northern Ireland—has been brought to bear on him to wipe off the statute book the part of the emergency legislation that deals with internment. It can be argued that it has not been used for many years, that this Government lack the political will to use it and that there is no likelihood that it will be used, so it is redundant. I opposed internment when it was introduced, and I have since been justified in my opposition, but I must say that it is a weapon that should be available to Government should they find that nothing else is working in the battle against terrorism. I have heard it argued that if internment became necessary we could legislate for it. That is nonsense: at the first whiff of a rumour that legislation needed to be passed in the House to introduce internment there would be a flight across the border and beyond. As soon as internment is removed from the legislation it will be removed for all time as an effective weapon in the battle against terrorism. On no account should the Government accept any recommendation that this vital element in their hold over the terrorists should be removed from the statute book.
The security situation does not affect merely the lives and limbs of those who live in Northern Ireland and of those who come to the Province as part of the security forces. It also affects the value of life there, not only socially and economically, but constitutionally. In my years in politics I have observed how much major decisions are influenced by circumstances rather than principles, especially by security circumstances. Was it not the Prime Minister who said, after signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that she simply could not allow the violence to continue? That was a clear signal that the security circumstances had prompted her political action. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is a product of violence. I ask the Government, when dealing with security and constitutional matters, to do what is right, not what is expedient.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): This has been an interesting, good and wide-ranging debate. It has ranged over matters that lie outside the order and over matters that have come up since it was laid—including the House of Lords ruling on inquests, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland. There has also been quite a lot of discussion—I do not complain about it—of matters that affect Lord Colville's long-term review and the long-term re-enactment of the legislation, which we shall have to deal with in primary legislation in due course. I shall try to deal with these issues as best I can, and I shall also have to refer to the order itself.
It is a matter of profound regret to us all that again we have to renew these powers, but it is essential that we do

so to fight terrorism and to try to minimise the loss of life and property and the suffering in Northern Ireland. which have continued for so long.
The debate has been held against the sombre background of the three apparently sectarian murders in less than a week since the order was put on the Order Paper. Nothing could better demonstrate why the police and Army need emergency powers to deal with such evils, but there have been plenty of other evil murders in the past year, too. It is because the Government are determined that terrorism—loyalist, republican or any other sort—should be fought and extirpated from Northern Ireland that we must renew these powers. Anyone who knows the realities of life in Northern Ireland knows just how necessary they have proved to be in the fight.
This is why I found the Labour party's decision to vote against the order regrettable. To some extent, I agree with the criticism voiced by various hon. Members of the tone of the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of this, but his speech had some of the flavour of speeches made by those who say that there are only a few misguided individuals who are offended by the constitutional difficulties in the legislation, and that if only someone would explain matters to them and treat them nicely they would shut up and go away. It is not like that. We face a determined and sophisticated criminal conspiracy—it is longstanding and well organised—to impose the political will of the terrorists on the people of Northern Ireland by violence, terror or murder.
The ordinary law may be sufficient on its own to deal with individual criminals or small gangs of the sort with which we are familiar on this side of the water, but it does not provide the police and Army with the full statutory armament that they need if their work in protecting the whole community from the menace of terrorist gangsters is to succeed and the rule of law is to prevail. That is why the powers are necessary, and why it is necessary to have the powers to stop and search vehicles, to mount checkpoints and to stop and question people. These powers have led to the recovery of terrorists' equipment and they have also, as we saw last summer—especially during August—deterred their operations.
We all wish that we did not need these powers, but we do need them—and all the other powers in the order.
Much has been said about confidence. We all recognise the tremendous importance of everyone having confidence in the security forces, but it is not a one-sided affair. Everyone must have confidence that the security forces are fair and impartial and that anyone in the forces who acts outside the law will be made amenable to the law. There are people in all organisations—we know that there are some in the security forces—who occasionally break the law. They must be and should be made amenable to the law, and they are. If any Catholic or nationalist——

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend think that the remark of Gerry Collins, the Foreign Minister of the Republic, that the Ulster Defence Regiment as presently constituted has no role to play was helpful in building up confidence in the UDR among the minority community in the North?

Mr. Cope: My answer to that question will become clear in what I say later.
If any Catholic or any nationalist doubts the fairness and impartiality of the security forces in the way that they treat terrorism, they should examine the figures. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the figures on terrorism given in the past by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). One can judge the effectiveness of the security forces from the number of arrests. That is not a novel point as it has been made many times. The effect of the security forces against loyalist terrorists is greater than their effectiveness against nationalist terrorists. That demonstrates their fairness and impartiality more strongly than anything that I could say. However, there is another side to confidence. Both Unionists and nationalists must be confident that the security forces can protect them from the terrorist gangsters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army and other paramilitary extremists and terrorists. The Government will not—I say this especially to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who spoke for the Liberal Democrats—retain those powers any longer than they are needed. That is not our intention, but my goodness they are needed now, as the hon. and learned Gentleman recognised. Together with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and the General Officer Commanding, we will do our best to ensure that those powers are implemented sensitively and with the least inconvenience to the overwhelming innocent majority in Northern Ireland, from whichever community they come. Those powers are undoubtedly effective—although not 100 per cent.—and essential in helping us to deal with the problems of terrorism. The Diplock courts have enabled high standards of justice to be maintained in the Province. In his previous report, Lord Colville reminded us that the intimidation of jurors remains a big problem. That is one example of the special problems of Northern Ireland. The intimidation of witnesses is also of the greatest importance. The McGimpsey judgment by the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic was also mentioned and we have begun to examine that judgment carefully.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is binding on the Republic of Ireland. Under it, whatever the wording of the Irish constitution, or whatever was said in the recent judgment, the Irish are committed to the agreement, including article 1. The essential point remains that both Governments accept that the future of Northern Ireland will depend on the consent of the majority. Of course, it is true that the judgment confirms that the Irish constitution lays claim to Northern Ireland, just as the British constitution and law lay claim to judge Northern Ireland. International law also makes the same claim, because that is de facto the position and the Irish have agreed that that will continue to be the position unless there is a majority for change in the future.
I cannot match the rotundity of the phrases used by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is an expert in those matters. We hope and we believe that the Union will continue and I trust that that will reassure my hon. Friend. After all, we are a Unionist party as well as a Conservative party. There is no change in the position that article 1 records the formal acceptance by both Governments that the status of Northern Ireland will not be changed on the same basis.

Rev. William McCrea: Before the Minister leaves the point of reassuring the people of Northern Ireland, can he

tell me how, as the elected representative for Mid-Ulster, I can reassure my people about the safety of their lives? From the beginning of the year, my constituency has suffered more than any other constituency in the entire Province and the United Kingdom. My constituency is rampant with IRA terrorism. How can it be right that in a security debate, when we are discussing the lives of our people, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster cannot say a word? Yesterday we buried a constituent, who was a member of my congregation and of the UDR. What should I tell the widow and the three orphans who have been left without a father? How is it that the hon. Member for the constituency that has suffered more than any other in the Province cannot make a contribution to the debate? It is disgusting and says a great deal about what the people of Ulster and my constituents are suffering.

Mr. Cope: The management of debates is no longer in my hands, although it once was. I am glad that I could at least give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make that point. However, I must rush on as I must finish at 7 pm.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to the inquest judgment. It is not merely a question whether a policeman or a Government might be embarrassed by the giving of evidence. It is not embarrassment in the usual sense of the word. The policeman concerned had already been charged with and acquitted of murder. It is not the case that the inquest judgment applies only to security force members; it applies evenly across the board. In England and Wales no one can be compelled——

Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you help me and my constituents to understand something? There used to be a full day to debate these matters of life and death for the people of Northern Ireland under the emergency provisions. Why did the Government decide some days ago to reduce the debate to three hours and end the discussions at 7 o'clock? As I have already said, since the beginning of the year my constituents have been slaughtered and the stations in my constituency blown to bits, yet I am told today, as the elected representative of the people who are suffering more than any others, that this debate must stop at 7 o'clock and that I must remain silent. My constituents have been silenced by the IRA and now I am silenced by the House. I object to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The House decided by a resolution on 2 March that the debate would conclude at 7 o'clock. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cope: I shall have to resort to letters to answer some of the questions that have been raised during the debate, and I apologise for that. Since we have taken on our responsibilities, my right hon. Friend and I have spent much time visiting the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the UDR and prisons throughout the Province.
The UDR was subjected to an unbalanced attack by the "Panorama" programme. That has been referred to a great deal and I will not expand on it now. The UDR is a very fine and increasingly professional regiment. As is acknowledged on all sides, its members are exceptionally brave day in and day out, not only at their work in the


UDR but often at their work elsewhere and, of course, in their homes. The same applies to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to many people in the Province.
The main message that we should send to the terrorists tonight, as on other occasions, must be that their struggle is futile. They are not getting anywhere with all their violence. I say to terrorists on both sides that those who think that they can achieve their apparent political aims by terrorism are wrong. The past 20 years, among other things, have proved them wrong. The main reason for the struggle being futile is that neither the Government nor the House will give way to terrorism, not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere. What we are——

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [2 March]:

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 130.

Division No. 112]
[7. pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Glyn, Sir Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Grist, Ian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ground, Patrick


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hague, William


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, John


Cartwright, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)





Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion


Irvine, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Janman, Tim
Rost, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Kilfedder, James
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speed, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McCrea, Rev William
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Maginnis, Ken
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maples, John
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mitchell, Sir David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wallace, James


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Watts, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wheeler, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Redwood, John



Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)





NOES


Allen, Graham
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Buckley, George J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Armstrong, Hilary
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Margaret
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clay, Bob


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clelland, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Blunkett, David
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cox, Tom


Boyes, Roland
Cryer, Bob


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cummings, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dixon, Don






Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliot


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flannery, Martin
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, John
Pike, Peter L.


Galloway, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Primarolo, Dawn


George, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Radice, Giles


Gordon, Mildred
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lamond, James
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Leighton, Ron
Soley, Clive


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Walley, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Wareing, Robert N.


McAllion, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McFall, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McGrady, Eddie
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McLeish, Henry
Worthington, Tony


McNamara, Kevin



McWilliam, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.


Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The draft order has two related purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of some £71·8 million in the 1989–90 spring supplementary estimates. That amount, when added to the £4,223 million previously approved by the House, brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to some £4,295 million for this financial year, within a public expenditure total of some £5·8 billion.
The second purpose is to authorise the vote-on-account of some £1,816 million for 1990–91. That amount will, as usual, enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1990–91 main estimates for Northern Ireland are brought before the House later this year.
The estimates booklet and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account", which give full details of the sums sought under both headings, are, as usual, available from the Vote Office. The House will be aware that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, for law and order services, are not covered by the order that is before the House today.
I turn to the specific estimates before the House. I do not propose to refer to every vote where supplementary provision is being sought, but I shall draw attention to the main themes.
I start with the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on United Kingdom-wide support schemes. Some £2·4 million is sought mainly for increased payments under agricultural improvement schemes to meet higher than anticipated uptake and value of claims. Some £1 million is also required under the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme as a result of an increase in the number of animals eligible, and to provide for the increased premium for hardy bred sheep announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30 January. Those increases are, however, fully offset by lower than expected demand on capital grant schemes resulting in only a token increase of £1,000 in the vote, to some £36 million. That is in the nature of a bookkeeping exercise, but it is important nevertheless.
In the Department of Agriculture's vote 2, covering local support measures, some £1·8 million is required to meet increases in professional fees and compensation payments under the disease eradication programme. The sum of £0·6 million is required for laboratory modifications and scientific equipment. Those increases arise mainly from an upturn in the incidence of brucellosis and tuberculosis which has required more testing of animals. That enabled a serious outbreak of brucellosis in the pre-Christmas period to be contained. Regrettably, the incidence of tuberculosis has risen, despite determined efforts by the Department to contain the disease. Therefore, that area will continue to receive high priority. The sum of £200,000 is required for the woodlands grant scheme, to reflect a welcome increase in participation by the private sector in afforestation.
The increases is this vote are fully offset by reduced requirements under the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme. Expenditure under the programme has been less than expected, partly because of lower investment trends and partly because the conditions attaching to the scheme have been refined to achieve more effective targeting. The estimate includes also additional payments on behalf of the International Fund for Ireland in respect of the refurbishment of the marine research vessel Lough Foyle. These costs are recouped in full from the fund.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development, which has supplementary estimates for three votes. In vote 2, net additional provision of £ 12·5 million is sought. Of this, £10·7 million is in the section of the vote relating to assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. The House will recall that, under the agreement with Bombardier for the sale of Shorts, the Government undertook to fund losses incurred by Shorts from 1 April 1989 until the completion of the sale on 4 October 1989. The additional funding now required will discharge the Government's obligations in this matter.
Hon. Members will wish to note that, since the estimates were printed and laid, it has become apparent that some £5·6 million of the 1989–90 provision previously sought under the capital heading for Shorts will, in fact, be used to cover expenditure on Harland and Wolff in 1989–90. This remains consistent with the ambit of the vote. To compensate for that, there will be consequential adjustments to the provision for Shorts in 1990–91.
Also in vote 2, I am glad to say, additional funding is provided for the Local Enterprise Development Unit—LEDU—Northern Ireland's small business agency. Hon. Members will know that in my previous job I had a good deal to do with small businesses. I am glad to acknowledge the tremendous importance of small firms to the Northern Ireland economy. We do our best to stimulate and improve their performance. Under this head, £4·2 million is sought to enable LEDU to continue its work of stimulating growth in the small-business sector in Northern Ireland. In particular, it will enable LEDU to develop its network of local enterprise agencies, which is experiencing an increased level of uptake. These agencies are extremely valuable. The provision will also help to promote more enterprise through increased provision of enterprise training.
Many businesses fail because it is difficult to have simultaneously all the skills that are required to run a small business successfully, particularly when launching out. The training will include training on topics such as financial management and marketing techniques designed to prepare participants for self-employment. It will also cover special initiatives, such as the Northern Ireland innovation programme—part of a Europe-wide initiative aimed at supporting innovatory projects which are technology-based and export-oriented. These increases are offset by reductions of some £2 million, due mainly to delays in implementing projects in the industrially relevant research and development sector.
A token supplementary estimate is sought for the Department of Economic Development under vote 3, where various increases in expenditure are offset by savings elsewhere within the vote. Hon. Members will note that, as part of the Government's plans to rationalise the training system in Northern Ireland, a single training organisation, to be known as the Training and

Employment Agency, will be established in April. We require £0·6 million as a contribution towards the costs of winding up the existing Northern Ireland Training Authority, which currently has responsibility for supporting, developing and promoting training in the private sector of Northern Ireland industry. This is another important area with which I had something to do previously, and whose value, therefore, I appreciate.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is anything being done, by way of the grant towards training the disabled. to remove discrimination, especially in respect of deaf young people, and to change the community's attitude towards such people?

Mr. Cope: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question off the cuff. However, I shall ensure that, if possible, it is dealt with in the winding-up speech.
An additional £5·8 million is sought for the Department of Economic Development, under vote 5, mainly for financial assistance to the gas industry. Twelve gas undertakings have completed their closure programmes on target, and some 79,000 consumers have had their homes converted from gas to alternative fuels. The additional provision is required mainly for accelerated payments in connection with the rundown and closure costs of Belfast Gas.
The Department of the Environment, under vote 1, covering roads, transport and ports, requires a net additional provision of £3·5 million. Of this, £2·9 million relates to grants paid by the Department to bus companies for capital expenditure on the purchase of new buses.
A token supplementary estimate is required for the Department of the Environment, under vote 3, where various increases are being offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. The main increase is in respect of consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage schemes associated with compliance with European Communities directives.
An additional £1·9 million is sought for the Department of the Environment, under vote 5, mainly for capital expenditure on office accommodation and office furniture. Of this, £1·6 million relates to the accommodation requirements of the operational strategy computerisation programme in the Department of Health and Social Services.
Turning to the Department of Education, a net increase of £9·9 million is sought, under vote 1. An additional £11·1 million is required for grants to education and library boards. Of this, £7 million is for pay awards and price increases and for the youth training programme. The amount required for capital grants is £4·1 million. An extra £1·8 million is for capital expenditure by voluntary schools, including the purchase of sites and properties for integrated schools.
The increases in this vote are offset by a reduction of £3·1 million, owing to the delay in settling the 1989 pay award for further education lecturers. These adjustments will bring vote 1 provision to over £760 million in the current year, within a total education budget of some £899 million.
Hon. Members will note that additional provision of some £1 million is made within this vote for expenditure in support of the Government's proposals for education reforms. This brings the additional resources that have been made available for this purpose to over £5 million in


1989–90. This will help to ensure that schools and teachers are prepared, and have the necessary facilities, to implement these important changes.
In the Department of Education, under vote 2, an additional £2·6 million is sought on a range of services. The main increase of £1·6 million is for grants to universities, and includes the 1989 lecturers' pay settlement, as well as capital expenditure on information technology, including an upgraded automated library system at Queen's university.
Finally, for health and personal social services, an extra £29 million is being sought in vote 1. Of this total, some £17·6 million is for the health and social services boards, mainly to meet the cost of pay settlements. It will also enable further progress to be made in the transition from institutional care to community care for those in long-stay accommodation. A further £4·7 million is required for family practitioner services to meet increased demand and higher costs. These additions bring vote 1 provision for the current year to £865 million, within a total health and social services budget of over £960 million.
The House will note that, included in the additional sums sought, £3·5 million is for initial work on the implementation of health service reforms in Northern Ireland. These are designed to give patients better health care, a greater choice of services and better value for money, which is very important.
I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the order's main provisions. I realise that Members from England and Wales no longer have an equivalent debate. This debate enables Members from Northern Ireland constituencies in particular to draw attention to individual points, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do his best to respond. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister of State went through the details of the order in his well-known fashion and we are all grateful to him for shedding more light on the bare figures. I regret that on this occasion he has not taken the opportunity to speak at some length about the overall economic prospects for the North of Ireland.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member obviously does not know that the term "North of Ireland" is distasteful and offensive to most people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marshall: On many previous occasions when I have used that term in the House and in the Province, it has not been treated in that fashion.

Mr. Taylor: That is nonsense.

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to put his point of view later in the debate. I am not prepared in this debate, which is about the economy in the North of Ireland——

Mr. Taylor: Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marshall: —to continue the debate that took place between 4 pm and 7 pm. I am prepared to learn, as the

House knows, but there is a limit to the amount of knowledge that I am prepared to imbibe from the right hon. Gentleman.
This occasion enables us to have a comprehensive debate on the economy of the Province, but it is unfortunate that on this occasion the Minister of State did not see fit to outline the Government's view of the economic prospects for the Province in the coming years. It is fair to point out, as I have done previously, that the economy in the North of Ireland cannot be insulated from that of the remainder of the United Kingdom. Experience has shown repeatedly that when expansion has occurred in Britain, expansion in Northern Ireland has proceeded after a due period and has been at a much lower rate than in Britain, History is repeating itself. As a consequence of the economic downturn faced by the country as a whole, the Province is likely to experience a greater decline than the remainder of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cope: I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the latest figures for Northern Ireland manufacturing output, which show an increase to September 1989 of 9 per cent. compared with 3 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. In that respect, as in one or two others, the Northern Ireland economy is doing better than the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Marshall: The Minister of State will be pleased to know that I shall address those specific points. We can all pick evidence from various parts of the economy to try to prove our points. The underlying evidence from statistics in the Province is that the economic indicators for the next few years are bleak, to say the least. Unless the Government are prepared to take further action to activate the economy and to take further economic initiatives the progress that we have seen over the past 12 months will amount to little in the long term.
Hon. Members, especially those from the North of Ireland, will recognise that poverty continues to be endemic in the Province. That has been exacerbated by the recent changes in the social security system. As in the remainder of the United Kingdom, one's opportunity of getting a grant from the social fund depends on where one lives and how much money is left in the pot. I repeat a plea that I have made many times: this is not the way that we should deal with poverty. It should not just be a matter of luck, of where one lives and of how early one applies for the grant from the pot. Poverty must be judged on the basis of need, not on geography and how much money is left in a fund. I urge Northern Ireland Ministers with responsibility in these matters to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security to ensure that the people in the North of Ireland, and the rest of the people in the United Kingdom, have their applications judged on the basis of need, and not financial stringency, which is the method that operates in the social security system.
The Minister of State mentioned Shorts. On a previous occasion, I put a number of specific questions to him and I shall repeat two. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer them specifically or, if he cannot, at least pledge that he will write to me with the answers. The House would like to know why the Government retained ownership of the leasing companies when Shorts was privatised. What is the extent of the Government's financial liability as a


consequence of retaining those leasing companies? The Minister mentioned further assistance to Shorts and, almost as an afterthought, said that just over £5 million would be given to Harland and Wolff. Why is that £5 million required by Harland and Wolff?
I wish that the Minister had spoken at greater length about the enonomy of the Province, because 1992 and the single market are rapidly approaching. Taken together with the opening of the Channel tunnel, this will again highlight the problems and questions arising from the peripherality of the North of Ireland and the island of Ireland. I should like to know whether the Government will announce their present thinking on improved transport links between Northern Ireland and Britain and what, if any, discussions they have had with the Republic to improve transport links between the island of Ireland and mainland Britain. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give us an inkling of the Government's view of the transport problems facing the North of Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole as a consequence of the single market and 1992 and the probable opening of the Channel tunnel a few years later. The non-economic problems of the Province were discussed at length in our previous debate——

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman moves too far from the question of transport between the island of Ireland and Great Britain, may I ask him to press the Government to make every effort to maintain the pre-eminence of the port of Larne as the point of export for the whole island—in particular, by improving the quality of roads to Larne port?

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a regular attender of these debates. He will know that 18 months or two years ago I made precisely that suggestion to the Government. If he consults the report of that debate, he will find that I pressed for the widening of the route between the port of Larne and Belfast. He will be pleased to hear that I support, and will continue to support, that aim. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Even though it is in the North.

Mr. Marshall: As my hon. Friend says, even though it is in the North.
One problem that we face in discussing the economy of the Province is the tendency to underplay the problems and a tendency for any criticism of the Government to be somewhat muted. I presume that that is a cross-party desire, based on the belief that unnecessary criticism is likely further to undermine confidence in the Province. But in spite of the economic index that the Minister cited, everyone in the House and the Province needs to be aware that the economic prospects are not especially good.
Last year, bankruptcies in the Province increased by 75 per cent., whereas in England and Wales they increased by just under 10 per cent. I realise that there are particular causes for that, with the high gearing ratio of many companies in the Province. Nevertheless, that high incidence of bankruptcy is not indicative of a strong underlying economy.
In addition, the National Westminster Bank is again predicting increases in unemployment. I know that Ministers will point out that unemployment fell

substantially in 1989. I applaud that fact, and I accept that the figures are correct; I do not suggest that that fall can be attributed solely to the juggling of statistics. Nevertheless, most non-partisan observers in the Province take the overall fall with a large pinch of salt and point out that the fall results in part from the fact that more people are leaving the Province for England, that there are more places on Government training schemes and that there have been further restrictions on eligibility for unemployment benefit.
The latest Coopers and Lybrand report states the case more succinctly, and with a non-partisanship that the House may accept:
it would appear that some of the changes have been cosmetic, and aimed at reducing the unemployed total rather than securing lasting employment.
Meanwhile, manufacturing productivity in the Province continues to lag behind that in the rest of the United Kingdom; the Province achieved 80 per cent. of what was achieved in the remainder of the United Kingdom. More disturbing still is that in some cases productivity figures are only half the figure achieved by comparable employers in West Germany.
The construction industry is reporting a downturn in activity. If the figures are correct, they must place doubts over the continuation of economic growth in the Province.
In its latest annual report, the Northern Ireland Economic Council predicts difficulties for the economy arising from high rates of inflation, high interest rates and the balance of payments deficit facing the United Kingdom as a whole.
That is the economic background, and it leaves no room for complacency. It is against that background that we must ask how the Government react to the problem. To be fair, they do not do nothing, although they do not do a great deal. They tinker with the problem, because there is a vacuum at the heart of their economic policy for the North of Ireland. Specifically, they lack a coherent strategy for economic development in the Province. They tinker because their political dogma dictates a market approach, while their experience suggests the need for an interventionist approach. Their tinkering leads to uncertainty at the heart of their industrial development policy; it places question marks over their objectives and over the means by which they hope to achieve them.
The latest annual report from the Northern Ireland Economic Council says at paragraph 2.14:
Elements of both the market approach and the intervention model co-exist uneasily within the current framework of industrial development policy in Northern Ireland. The perceived thrust of recent government policy statements in respect of industrial development clearly favours an increasing reliance upon market based solutions to the Province's industrial problems. However, the agencies responsible for the conduct of industrial … policy, the IDB and LEDU, are equally clearly inclined to a scale of interventionism more in keeping with a planning approach to these problems. In the Council's view this anomalous situation breeds uncertainty as to both the objectives of industrial development policy in Northern Ireland and the means by which those objectives are to be achieved.
Again, that is the non-partisan view of an organization with no particular axe to grind, and it highlights the uncertainty that lies at the heart of the Government's economic policy in the Province.
We must conclude—reluctantly or otherwise—that the Government would prefer to apply their market philosophy to the Province but that they know that they cannot because of the particular and extensive nature of


Northern Ireland's problems, especially given its status on the periphery of the United Kingdom and the European Community, and, in many instances, because of the outdated industries and the specific problems arising from the troubles.
Government economic policy in the Province tends to fall between two stools—the fully-fledged market approach and a fully fledged interventionist approach. That, again, leads to tinkering and a half-hearted approach to the market model and to the interventionist model. That half-hearted approach is reflected in expenditure levels. If the Under-Secretary examines the figures, he will see that since 1982–83 there has been an annual average fall in real terms of about 3 per cent. in overall expenditure on development and industrial support. That is the real position, contrary to what the Government would have us believe.
What should the Government be trying to do? It is clear to most hon. Members—if not Ministers—that there is an urgent need to produce a proper strategic plan for economic development in Northern Ireland. A continuation of existing policies will not be sufficient to achieve a rate of growth that would allow the Northern Ireland economy to catch up with other regions in the United Kingdom. Specifically, a number of key issues must be addressed, including better training and skills forecasting, encouragement for more of the talented young people to stay in the Province, improving the quality and quantity of goods and services and further developing the local tourist and leisure industries.
The Opposition believe that those issues will not be addressed coherently if the Government maintain their hands-off approach to the economy in the Province. At a minimum, there must be greater co-ordination between existing plans. As we all know, there are already corporate plans for the Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. However, they cannot individually be said to amount to an economic strategy. They do not claim to be pointing the way ahead or to be setting targets.
I recognise the limitations of the interventionist approach and I also recognise the political difficulties facing Northern Ireland Ministers if they want to pursue such an approach. However, the interventionist approach helps to focus attention on the major problems and possible growth areas in an overall co-ordinated fashion. In particular, such an approach would enable concentration to focus on those sectors of the economy with the best potential for development, including the health sector, education, miscellaneous services and the distribution service. Concentration on those areas and others could yield substantial dividends in terms of a more secure economic base for Northern Ireland.
Even within the present limitations of Government policy, some specific improvements could be made. For example, the IDB could be made more accountable for its expenditure. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that banner headlines such as the one that appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 5 March promising that 500 new jobs would be created in the textile industry are no good if many of those jobs fail to materialise.
The suggestion made by the Northern Ireland Economic Council that the IDB should include in its

annual report an update on jobs created as a consequence of expenditure in previous years would be beneficial because it would provide at least a crude measure of the efficacy of the IDB in promoting job creating.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I fully support the hon. Gentleman's theme about the IDB. However, does he support the separate existence of LEDU? There are proposals that LEDU should be abolished and incorporated into the IDB. Many of us involved in business in Northern Ireland would resent that.

Mr. Marshall: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that he would resent that?

Mr. Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Marshall: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman may not like what I am about to say. He will recognise from what I have said about the existing plans for the Department of Economic Development, the IDB and LEDU that I was calling for much closer co-ordination of those plans. With the privatisation of Shorts and Harland and Wolff, there will be a need for a reorganisation of the Department of Economic Development as a consequence of that and other economic changes that have taken place in the North.
If we were to develop the kind of corporate interventionist model that I have suggested, I would urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept that there is a need for greater co-operation between the three bodies to which I have referred and a need perhaps for some amalgamation as well. Therefore, effort and financial expenditure could be directed to the potential growth areas in the economy of Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will not be happy with my suggestion, but at least it offers an opportunity for a coherent economic plan for the North of Ireland.

Mr. Taylor: Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree on the use of adjectives sooner or later.
During a previous debate, the Minister of State promised a White Paper on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and the effect that that privatisation would have on electricity tariffs in the North of Ireland. He promised that White Paper early in the new year and I believe that the year that he referred to was the beginning of 1990, not the beginning of 1991. When is that White Paper likely to see the light of day? When will the House and Northern Ireland Members have the opportunity to debate fully the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity? I should like a specific response to that.
From visits to the Province and from reading the local newspapers, I note that the exploitation of lignite resources has received relatively little public attention in the past few months. Hon. Members would argue that the exploitation of lignite reserves in the Province represents a potentially significant addition to the Northern Ireland economy. What time scale do the Government have in mind for the commercial exploitation of lignite reserves? More specifically, will they give an assurance that, when privatised, Northern Ireland Electricity will not be permitted to delay plans for the exploitation of lignite?
To be frankly partisan, the only hope for the Northern Ireland economy, as for the remainder of the United


Kingdom, is the return of a Labour Government who are committed to creating the basis of economic prosperity, jobs for all and the elimination of poverty, not the further creation of poverty that the Government have caused through the allocation of financial resources on the basis of rationing rather than on the basis of need.

8 pm

Mr. James Kilfedder: The people of Northern Ireland are generous-hearted and kind. They will not reject any party that wishes to stand in an election in Northern Ireland—the more the merrier. More lost deposits should benefit the Province in some way. We believe in democracy. We do not try to stop anybody standing in elections. If the Labour party wishes to put forward candidates in my consitutency of North Down, it is perfectly welcome to do so. I shall have no objection.
I make no apology for again stressing that senior citizens in the Province are being denied basic rights. That denial applies in every other part of the United Kingdom, but I am chiefly concerned with Northern Ireland, and my constituency of North Down in particular. The time has come for a Bill of Rights for the elderly. About 18 years ago, I argued for a Bill of Rights for the whole United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is interested in that point. I was prepared to accept a Bill of Rights that was limited to Northern Ireland if need he. The elderly people of Northern Ireland certainly need a Bill of Rights to protect them. They should have the right to live out their lives in dignity and in reasonable comfort. That is not too much for an old person to ask.
Elderly people have the right to adequate care in the community. Surely that right should be bestowed upon them after a lifetime of service to their communities. They should have the right to a decent pension that takes account of the high cost of living in Northern Ireland. The cost of living in Northern Ireland is higher than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Elderly people should have an immediate pension increase of £10 a week per person, although that would still not bring the amount up to that which is available to other retired people in the European Community.
If we judge a society by the way in which it looks after the elderly, the handicapped and the chronically sick, the Government fail the test. One simple step that would give great comfort to many elderly people throughout our country would be to introduce concessionary television licences. Most elderly people depend upon television as a means of entertainment and communication with the outside world. Television has become basic to their way of life. If they cannot provide completely free television, a caring Government should provide television licences at a concessionary rate.
Many elderly people in Northern Ireland feel particularly angry because, from next month, they must pay £71 to the BBC so that they can hear all sorts of nasty things said about the forces of law and order who protect them in their homes and in their community. They are angry that their money should be spent on such propaganda.
The Health Service has deteriorated in many respects as a result of budget cuts in Northern Ireland. We had a good Health Service—good local hospitals and major hospitals throughout the Province. Unfortunately, the Health Service has become worse. There is a waiting list for

operations. That means great anxiety not only for patients, many of whom rightly dread the prospect of an operation, but for relatives. Money is needed for our hospitals in Northern Ireland. The Government must take action to reverse the rundown in local hospitals such as Bangor hospital, in my constituency.
I shall give an example of how the Government approach social services in Northern Ireland. The Eastern health board, which one could regard as a minion of the Government, has introduced further cuts in home help services for the elderly. Those cuts are quite disgraceful. Elderly people in the area suffer discrimination, and many are denied proper home help services. I shall quote one example. It is not the worst case that has come my way, but it is one that I could readily put my hand on when I left home this morning.
An elderly constituent of mine who lives on her own and who has suffered the effects of a stroke and a heart attack had home help services for six hours a week. That dear old lady desperately wanted someone to assist with cleaning her home. Most elderly people are houseproud, and it is certainly bad for their morale when conditions in the home deteriorate. That elderly lady wanted a home help to clean her home, in addition to making her breakfast and her main meal of the day and doing a bit of laundry. She privately arranged with her home help that, instead of doing one bit of business, she would also clean the house.
The Eastern health board heard about it and immediately cut that lady's six hours' home help to three and a half hours a week. It said that she was not entitled to have a home help to clean the home. How callous can an organisation be to deny an elderly lady living on her own, and who is dependent on her home help, the services of a person to clean her home? That is the only case that I shall quote tonight, but there are many others.
A letter from the responsible Minister in the Department of Health states:
In the North Down and Ards Unit of Management"—that is within the Eastern health board area—
due to budget constraints, it is not generally possible to provide a cleaning service.
For this reason, this lady's hours were reduced to three and a half hours per week. Of course, that made my poor constituent heart broken. I thought that the Government believed in the policy of keeping elderly people in their homes for as long as possible. It is a callous, hard-hearted bureaucracy that denies home help to the elderly.
I have dealt with a case where only 15 minutes of home help was provided. I mentioned it on the last occasion when I spoke on the home help service about a month ago in the House. The home help would hardly have time to take her coat off, say good morning to the old lady and make her a cup of tea before she had to put on her coat and go away again. It is morally wrong to punish the elderly when the Government have to find means of making cuts in expenditure.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman and I share a belief in certain principles in connection with Northern Ireland. One is a Bill of Rights, which he mentioned, and another is devolved government. I agree with his point about the need to extend expenditure on social welfare. Does he share a fourth principle, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) when he argued that interventionist policies, if not socialist policies, are appropriate for the


regeneration of the economy of Northern Ireland? That would enable the hon. Gentleman's remarks about social welfare and perhaps other principles to be put into practice.

Mr. Kilfedder: I do not wish to go off at a tangent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have only to look at the history of Northern Ireland to see that it depended more than any other region of the United Kingdom on high public expenditure. That is why so many people's jobs depend on the Government. I am nervous about the way in which certain firms have been moved into the private sector. But I am afraid that I should go beyond the time that I promised to take and perhaps the terms of the order if I were to respond further to the hon. Gentleman's point.
I wish to refer to another section of the order. I congratulate the Minister with responsibility for the Department of Education on his recent announcement that £11·5 million is to be spent on the North Down and Ards further education college. The programme is to cover five years and to begin next year. Will the Minister consider bringing the programme forward by one year and accelerating the rate of the order so that we can achieve in four years what is planned for five years? Given the urgent need for innovative ideas in the related fields of education and training, particularly if Northern Ireland is to surmount the problems of being part of the European Community yet being a peripheral member of the single market, I urge the Secretary of State to explore, perhaps with the universities and certainly with the Industrial Development Board and the further education colleges in Northern Ireland, ways of improving employment training.
The keener competition that Ulster firms will face after 1992 means that we must achieve higher standards in Northern Ireland. Two factors follow. The infrastructure of roads, rail, ports and airports must be brought up to date and made highly efficient. The talents of our people must be harnessed with the aim of making our productivity the highest in Europe. That seems an almost impossible task if we start now, but it is vital if Northern Ireland is to play a full part within the EEC.
We must consider how to improve the output of people working in industry and commerce now. They are the people who will create future jobs for Northern Ireland and we must look to them for improvements in our prospects in the single European market. The second group of people whom we must train are those who are completing their final year of compulsory school education. Somehow they must be saved from joining the dole queues of the unskilled and semi-skilled.
The new training and employment agencies mentioned in the order for which provision of £70 million has been made will occupy a pivotal position in the strategy after 2 April when the order commences. It would completely defeat the aim if we were to follow the old-style approach. Years ago we had the employment and training committees. They were advisory only and had no executive power. They were useless. In the same way as the Department of Agriculture gives assistance to production, marketing and processing and is also responsible for technical education, something must be done for industry and commerce in the Province.
The new training and employment agency could be the machine to oil the pistons of change in training. The labour market services and other initiatives are costed at over £83 million. The job training, youth training and action for community employment programmes have become important to the unemployed. Many people aged between 25 and 35 have known no other kind of employment. If we are to make a real contribution to the future of Northern Ireland, we must make sure that our young people are highly trained.
The two intractable problems that remain are long-term unemployment and youth unemployment. Both are high in the Republic of Ireland. Outward migration of 40,000 a year helps to keep down the total number of unemployed people in the Republic. In Northern Ireland the number of people emigrating has increased from over 8,000 a year. Emigration is a tragedy because we must keep as many of our young people as possible in the Province. In both countries it is the young and short-term unemployed who emigrate. The proportion of long-term unemployed is rising. It is 8 per cent. higher today than it was six years ago. Long-term unemployment for the under-25s accounts for one third of all unemployed young people. We must fight for those young people. That is why I make an appeal to the Minister.
As the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment is on the Front Bench, I shall briefly refer to pollution. I urge him to make sure that following recent international expressions of anxiety the dumping of sewage in the sea off the cost of North Down comes to an end now. Such pollution endangers the health of people, particularly young people, who use the coastal waters.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: When taking part in these debates, we are always aware that regardless of the number of points that we raise or the mistakes that we discover, we cannot alter a single figure or word in the order. Therefore, one feels that one is speaking almost in a vacuum, remote from the real world. However, the Minister will hear what we say and, more importantly, Hansard will record our proceedings and others will be able to read them.
The scope of the order is wide and one could make a considerable number of observations about it, but in the interests of other right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate I shall compress my remarks into as short a time as possible.
On vote 1, Department of Agriculture, I appeal again to the Minister to set up a single section or a single department at a convenient level within the Department to co-ordinate all the road, river, public health and agricultural drainage. It is most distressing for householders, business men or farmers to be passed from one section or Department to another at, say, midnight, when their belongings are floating in anything from 2 inches to 4 feet of water, with each person who is contacted expressing great sympathy but apparently unable or unwilling to help until, on occasions, Members of Parliament have to intervene to try to get something done. Therefore, once again I ask the Minister to look seriously at that.
In relation to vote 4, Department of the Environment, in part II of the order, if a wrong planning decision has been made in the past, will the Minister ensure that that


wrong decision is not used to approve an even more outrageously bad decision in the future? It is incredible that, because of departmental direction, professional officers are forced to ignore common sense and good planning practice simply because a ridiculous decision has been approved in the past, for whatever reason. Will the Minister also consider appointing a specific senior officer capable of arriving at a planning decision when the planning section and the road section disagree about a planning application? It is ridiculous that where an applicant seeks advice before putting in an application, he or she becomes more and more confused as the inquiry proceeds. The planners may insist, for instance, that a replacement dwelling is rebuilt in more or less the position of the original, using the existing access or road, while the roads section may insist equally vehemently that the dwelling should be moved to a new position with a new access. In those circumstances, one is advised to tell one's constituents to apply, to be turned down and then to take their case to appeal so that the commissioner can make the decision. It is a good job that in certain areas the planning department is not privatised as I am sure that it would go into liquidation within a month.
Another problem is the planners' insistence, when giving permission to retired persons to build a retirement bungalow, that they should build the bungalow 100 metres or so from the road, thus creating a wilderness between the house and the road because the owner is not capable of mowing a quarter of an acre of grass once a week.

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his point about building a retirement bungalow 100 yards from the road, will he also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that on farms a retirement bungalow often has to be built practically in the farmyard? If the one is bad, the other is surely worse. Surely some flexibility could be allowed so that we can get away from the idea of having a group of buildings clumped together so tightly that young and old are looking down each others throats all their days.

Mr. Forsythe: I agree with the use of the word "flexibility". I am sure that we could get a little fliexibility while, I hope, working within the planning laws.
With regard to vote 1, Department of Environment, and to section (g) dealing with railways, once again I should like to put on the record my own and my party's sympathy for the relatives of those who were tragically killed at the Slaght crossing. Our hearts go out to the children who were orphaned by the crash and to all those who have lost loved ones. As party spokesman on transport, in the past I have put on record my concern about such crossings and I hope to have the opportunity to do so again at the public inquiry. I most sincerely congratulate the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), on his prompt action in setting up the inquiry. I congratulate also the fire service, the ambulance service, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the hospitals, the nurses, the doctors and everyone who helped at the scene.
The inquiry must look at all aspects of that type of crossing, not just at that specific instance. I am concerned that we should do that because on 1 October last year—just five months before the accident at Slaght crossing—a gentleman was driving towards that crossing with his wife, sister and brother-in-law. Just before he reached the

crossing, he almost overtook a number of children on bicycles. As a result of that, the driver was then extremely careful to make sure that everything was correct. When he got to the crossing, he made sure that the warning lights were not flashing. He allowed the children in front of him to cross the crossing. He then proceeded to cross the railway lines as quickly as possible. As he reached the middle of the railway lines, one of his passengers screamed in his ear, "Quick, there's a train coming", or words to that effect. The car had just reached safety when an engine thundered past behind it, without any warning whatever.
I repeat that that incident was at the crossing where the later incident occurred. Because of the shock and because of the incline beyond the crossing on both sides, the driver had travelled about 30 yd further before he recovered himself enough to turn back to check the situation. As he approached the crossing for the second time, the warning lights started to flash—long after the engine had passed. Along with the other road-users at the scene, the driver waited for a long time, but the lights still continued to flash. Eventually, one of the other drivers got out of his car, walked to the railway line, looked up and down it, saw that nothing was coming and eventually went across, as did everyone else.
The gentleman concerned was willing to appear to give evidence. The incident was reported to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a statement was taken. The facts are all on record. It is imperative that all such evidence should be brought before the public inquiry. That is why I should like the inquiry to be sufficiently wide to take in the operation of all such crossings. I should like the evidence of such events, if the RUC has records on them, to be gathered together and examined. Various questions must be asked so that the causes of the accident are revealed and, if necessary, changes made to such crossings before we have further tragedies. I know that the Minister agrees. Sadly, those who could tell us exactly what happened on that occasion are no longer with us. We owe it to them and their children to discover the truth.
I hope that more attention will be paid to the result of the inquiry than is apparently being paid to the Tully road closure inquiry. One of the points made by the inspector—he made only two—was that the roads division should complete the Killead bypass as soon as possible. Not only local representatives but the Department at its headquarters in Belfast led me to believe before the result of the inquiry was known that the bypass would be started as soon as possible, perhaps even during this financial year. I have been dismayed and alarmed since the report was published to be told by local councillors that the bypass is being further postponed. I have not been told that, but: if it is true, it is intolerable.
The one section of road near Aldergrove international airport which has the greatest volume of traffic, including heavy traffic, of all the roads in the area—the Minister gave me the figures—is not being improved, yet another section of the road which has less traffic is being improved even as we speak. That is incredible. If no work is started on the Killead bypass after all these years—it goes back to the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was the Member for Antrim, South and was promised the bypass—it is a scandal. The Department is treating the residents of Killead village very badly. I hope that the Minister will ease my fears and tell me that what I have heard is not true and that the bypass is to be started in the near future.
I wish to make a few points about the number of employees and the sums being spent by the Department. Out of £156·5 million, which covers roads, lighting, parking and ferry services, transport, railways, ports and administration, and other expenditure, only £29 million will go on new construction, while £36 million will be used for maintenance. Public liability will continue to cost £6 million. That is a high figure and must point to something being wrong with the roads.
The number of industrial workers has fallen by 15 and costs £19 million while the number of administrative staff has increased by 134 and costs, with consultancy fees, £30 million. I can assure the Minister that if the overheads of my former business in the construction industry had been as high as that, I should have been out of business. I am sure that that cannot be to the advantage of the general public.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Some of the extra staff may be creating designs which go out to tender in the private sector, so those whom the hon. Gentleman does not praise as he might might be keeping his business in business.

Mr. Forsythe: I accept what the Minister has said and note his use of the word "might"
In the water and sewage section, the number of industrial workers has fallen by 29 and costs £17 million, whereas the number of administrative staff has fallen by only 20 and costs, with consultancy fees, £23·5 million. I am not suggesting that we should make people unemployed, but I am emphasising that out of a total of £93 million the administration costs are £23·5 million, or 25 per cent.
Grants to small and medium-sized firms are listed. I heard what the Minister said about being a supporter of small businesses. That is why I wonder why the small businesses total has been reduced by £268,000. I do not know whether the Minister welcomes that. What is the reason for it? I have received complaints from constituents who feel that unless one has a foreign-sounding name or comes from certain parts of the Province the chances of securing assistance are remote. I know that that does not apply to the Local Enterprise Development Unit, but to the Industrial Development Board.
Will the Minister explain why many people in Northern Ireland are worried about pollution in our rivers and lakes? The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) commented on that. I drew the Minister's attention to the problem of work being carried out on river beds by the drainage division of the Department. Fishermen have been complaining about that. Indeed, they have been complaining readily about many environmental problems and there is certainly support for their views. I understand that recently Ballymena borough council called for a public inquiry into the Fisheries Conservancy Board. Perhaps the Minister has some idea of the problem. I should be interested to know what the problems are.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also tremendous anxiety about the depletion of salmon and Dollaghan in Lough Neagh, which is believed to have come about because of inactivity by bailiffs and the Fisheries Conservancy Board to the

extent that fishermen feel that the word "conservancy" should be dropped and it should simply be called the fisheries board?

Mr. Forsythe: My hon. Friend puts his case well. I am concerned that the borough council should go to the trouble to make such a proposal and it should be looked at.
I am also concerned about the past year's underspend of the social fund last year, which amounted to as much as 66 per cent. in certain areas. I agree with the hon. Member for North Down about the problems faced by pensioners and the handicapped and, in particular, the problems associated with the attendance allowance. When doctors examine applicants for that allowance, the applicants are often too proud to show that they need it. Pride will not allow them to say that they cannot do certain things and, sadly, it is their wives or their carers who have to bear the brunt of that. I know several who are in that postion. Those who administer the fund may believe that they are working to the guidelines, but perhaps they should be studied further.
The Government's aim is for better targeting of social services, but they have not hit the right target in Northern Ireland. I could discuss many other problems, but I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks.

Rev. William McCrea: I have already expressed my frustration and anger about the conclusion of the previous debate, which related to matters of life and death for my constituents. The time allotted to that subject was cut drastically and now we are to talk of more mundane things. It is interesting to note that the time allotted for the mundane things is more than that for the life and death issues faced by my constituents.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand my frustration. We are supposed to be discussing jobs and money for industry, but one of the first people murdered since December was an excellent business man, whom the Minister knew, Mr. Glover. He contributed so much to our community, yet the IRA decided that he should no longer live. Another business man was murdered in Castlederg, Mr. Alwin Kilpatrick. He was a gentleman of excellent sterling character, a Sunday school teacher, and a man who desired to give employment in the Castlederg area, which has been blighted with unemployment. However, the IRA decided that Alwin Kilpatrick was too valuable to the community. It acted as executioner after holding a back-room court somewhere in my constituency.
When we talk about the environment we should remember another young man, an employee of the Magherafelt district council, Mr. John Crawford. He was doing his ordinary day's work picking up paper as an employee of that district council. It was his job to tidy the environment, but because he was a part-time member of the UDR the IRA decided that he should no longer live and so it planted a bomb under his car. John will never walk again. His life has been spared, but his legs were blown off right to the end of his body. That is why I am so angry and frustrated.
When we discuss votes for business we should remember the value of the contribution made by Sidney McFarlane. He lost his legs, which were blown off because


the IRA decided he should no longer make any contribution to his community. The IRA decided that he should he lying in a coffin. His life has been spared, but he has lost his legs. He is another of my constituents who, since the beginning of this year, has been the subject of a terrorist attack.
What about the ordinary people of Sion Mills? I agree with what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said about senior citizens. At the weekend I met two elderly people who said that in their day they did what they could for their country in their work. They gave all that they had, but now they have no roof over their heads, because, in common with many others, the IRA decided that the buildings of Sion Mills should be blasted to the ground. Those elderly people have been left without one stick of furniture, without one piece of bed clothing and, other than the clothes on their back, they have absolutely nothing.
We are supposed to discuss agriculture, but what about the farmer who was doing his day's work—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) may not find my speech attractive, but I am talking about the realities faced by my constituents.

Mr. Jim Marsha: rose——

Rev. William McCrea: I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman, so I shall not give way.

Mr. Roger Stott: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, but I must tell him that I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) how I admired the hon. Gentleman's adroitness in getting his points across under the order we are discussing. I was not treating his speech as a laughing matter—it is a serious one.

Rev. William McCrea: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that and I accept his words in the spirit in which they were spoken.
If we are supposed to discuss agriculture, I must think of the farmer outside Cookstown who drove through a hail of 70 bullets, 40 of which went through the cab of the tractor. Thank God, his life was spared. I also think of another young director of a firm who the IRA decided should no longer live. He was a member of my party and a fellow member of the council on which I sit. The IRA put a bomb under his car.
Thomas Jameson was murdered coming home from his day's work—I buried him yesterday. He was a brave young man who worked, as his child said to me, from morning to night to try to give them the ordinary things of life. The IRA thought that he was a threat to its ideal of a united Ireland because he drove a cement lorry. He was such a threat because he happened to work for a firm which desires to create business and to give employment to our community. It has an excellent record.
Tommy Jameson was done to death. It sickens me—I care not who likes it or otherwise—that so-called mighty Provos can decide that such men must die. Thomas Jameson was an ordinary worker in our society and he is now six feet under. The IRA planned his death and its leader in that area of County Tyrone who planned his murder and saw that it was executed, Brian Arthers, struts around as though he was a chief administrator of justice.

He decides when my people of my constituency are going to die—he takes it out of the hands of God and puts it into his own.
Therefore, many problems face my constituents. It sickens me that members of Sinn Fein can condemn economic deprivation in our Province and, as elected representatives, we have to sit on councils with them, looking across the council chamber at them, and listening to them condemn the Government for the unemployment situation, and yet Sinn Fein supports an organisation which has blasted jobs out of existence and blasted young men out of employment. It has flattened businesses, blown up factories and lengthened the dole queue. The Minister should take the first step—the honourable step—and remove the mouthpiece of terrorism from the council chambers once and for all, so as not to give it the semblance of democracy because its members are not democrats. They are the mouthpiece of terrorism and they make no apology for that.
The hon. Member for North Down has already mentioned senior citizens who helped to build the nation, who gave their best and sacrificed much but got little in return. In their youth, with the sweat of their brow and for little money, they were willing to fight in world wars to defend the nation's freedom and to build the country that we, as the younger generation, have the privilege to live in. Those elderly people are being treated disgracefully in their old age.
Pensioners in Northern Ireland can have little pride in the benefits given to them. Northern Ireland has a higher cost of living than other parts of the United Kingdom. There are higher heating costs. The Government ought to give elderly people some comfort and help in the last days of their lives. They ought to give them not concessionary but free television licences. There ought also to be proper concessionary travel passes for elderly people throughout the Province.
What is called the home help service is despicable because it is not home help any more. The Government have to help elderly people. If they want them to stay in the community, they must provide the money to keep them there. It is not enough to come out with pious attitudes and statements of what they desire and then withdraw the money that allows that desire to be fulfilled. I support keeping elderly people in the community, if it is humanly possible, and it is right to give the appropriate money to allow that to be done. It is despicable to give an old-age pensioner 15 minutes of home help when the person doing the job can hardly get through the door to boil a kettle in that time, never mind make the tea, and then has to go.
Attendance and mobility allowances seem to be given a great deal of publicity. It is said, "Why don't you apply for this allowance?" but when people apply, the Government wonder how they can prevent them from getting the allowances.
I believe that a watchful eye must be kept on private nursing homes. I support such homes, but the Government must ensure that they give the elderly exactly what they are supposed to get—proper nursing care in the latter days of their lives.
Other matters are troubling my constituents, and I shall try to mention them briefly. I trust that the Minister will consider them. I do not expect an answer tonight on many of the subjects, but I expect an answer for my constituents.
One issue is the new history park at Gortin outside Omagh. The local council is spending £3 million on the development of that excellent pavilion. The greatest necessity for the region is to encourage tourists. Therefore, we need a proper infrastructure of roads, and I beg the Minister to give urgent consideration to proper roads leading to the new park at Gortin.
Another issue is the Omagh bypass. Phases 1, 2 and 3 are urgently required and I appeal to the Minister not to stop after phase 1 or to allow some 18 months' delay until the money is available for phase 2. Will he consider allowing the contractor to continue with phase 2 because it is so urgently needed for the county town of Omagh?
A ring sewer has been promised for the south of Omagh. It is urgently needed and has been talked about for years. It will go from Cranny Bridge to Dromore road. Housing development in the area has been restricted because there is not sufficient sewage capacity, so builders are permitted to build only seven houses in a development each year. That is pushing up the price of houses for people who desire to buy their own homes. I know that it is the Minister's and the Government's policy to encourage people to buy their own homes and to invest money in them. It is deplorable that prices are being inflated because of the lack of sewage provision in the area and because builders are not permitted to build the number of houses that they are willing to build. I have made representations and I am having discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on that subject.
We are disappointed about the removal of the regional Housing Executive office. There has been pressure to transfer the Housing Executive office to Londonderry and that is a death blow to jobs in the area. Will the Minister reconsider that decision and ask the Housing Executive to maintain the regional office in Omagh?
I also ask the Minister to consider helping the physically and mentally handicapped children of Fermanagh and Tyrone. We urgently need a centre for them in Omagh. The one in Stradreagh, Londonderry is not enough for the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone. I ask the Minister to consider the representations from the Western board for more money for this vital facility.
I ask the Minister also to consider the urgent need for a bypass for Cookstown. It should be brought out of the minor roads programme and put into the major works programme. I am told that £60,000 has been allocated for next financial year. If the work is done piecemeal, the traffic jams will merely move from one spot in the town to another. Why does not the Department grasp the nettle and solve the problem? Cookstown has the second highest unemployment in the Province and it is being strangled because the bypass that is essential to industrial development is being built piecemeal.
Only a few weeks ago an industrialist decided not to come to Cookstown because he found that it would be too costly. He found out about the build-up of traffic at the checkpoints in the town and discovered that, at one end of the town, the traffic had to wait for 20 minutes before moving on. To a business man, the money involved could mean survival or going under. I appeal to the Minister carefully to examine the Cookstown problem and allow

proper development of the bypass, which would rejuvenate the town. Employment and business are already leaving, and we need help.
Road surfaces in my constituency are generally not commendable, and some of them are deplorable. Many constituencies in the Province have major roadworks—they have dual carriageways and motorways—but not Mid-Ulster. We do not even have proper road surfaces, never mind the building of larger roads.
In rural planning policy we need urgent revision review and amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe): there are more refusals now than there have been for some time. Flexibility should be exercised towards those who want to live in the countryside, and those who must live there. I assure the Minister that he will have the support of the elected representatives of Ulster if he considers greater flexibility in rural planning; he will also have the support of the Northern Ireland electorate. Perhaps then he might decide to stand in one of our constituencies——

Mr. Peter Robinson: But then he would stand against me: he is a member of the East Belfast Tory association.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Although I am a member of the Stormont Castle workers branch of the East Belfast Conservative Association, if I were to stand I should find it difficult to choose between the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and that of Londonderry, East.
As for the planning applications, it might make sense if Members representing the rural areas came together and spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham):

Rev. William McCrea: I am taking full advantage of the place to which I was elected to make representations to the relevant Minister tonight. I trust that he will answer accordingly and not pass the buck to someone else.
I also want to ask the Minister about Department of Economic Development allocations of grants. Is it the aim of the Industrial Development Board, when awarding grants to help with jobs, to award them to projects with or without IFI grants? It is believed that if one does not get an IFI grant one will not receive an IDB grant. There is pressure to apply for an International Fund of Ireland grant to obtain some of these grants. Is that Government policy? If so, have the Government abandoned their responsibilities to create jobs? I trust not, but I have been asked to have the matter clarified this evening.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will be interested to hear the Minister tell us something about the news that broke today that there is some question about the Fruit of the Loom jobs that were to come to Londonderry, and about the viability of the firm in question. I trust that that can be put to rest; we all welcome jobs wherever they can be got in the Province——

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have an intervention in an intervention.

Rev. William McCrea: I give way to the Minister.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: This point was dealt with on the radio in Northern Ireland this morning. There was full knowledge of the news, which appears to be new news, but is not. I hope that there will not be a scare about the announcement by Fruit of the Loom. It cannot be possible that it is a requirement on an application for Local Enterprise Development Unit or Industrial Development Board assistance that people apply to the international fund. I hope that people with appropriate projects will apply to the international fund as that is useful. People should not think that they must be accepted by a non-governmental body to be acceptable to a Government body. Obviously, there are some things that LEDU and IDB would not deem acceptable.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the Minister for that assurance, which will be considered carefully by those outside the House.
I will draw to the Minister's attention two other matters connected with the vote. The elected representatives in the Province are concerned, when they sit in their district councils and decide on the district rate and the rate burden, that after careful scrutiny of the books and after listening to the appeals to keep the district rates down, they find that the regional rate is dumped on top of the district rate with a massive incease in percentage. That happened last year. Will the Minister examine that matter carefully? I trust that when the regional rate is set it will not be an exorbitant burden on my constituency.
Will the Minister examine the area of Castlederg, which has suffered so much? It needs proper roads and proper hotels to bring in and accommodate tourists. It also urgently needs jobs because it is dying. Because of terrorist activity, it has suffered more than any other village in the Province in the 20 years of troubles. Will the Minister act as quickly as possible on the survey that has already been carried out? If he does, the district of Castlederg will be rejuvenated and life will be brought back to the people who have suffered so much.
In the surrounding area of Strabane appeals have been made for appropriate grants to bring several cottages up to a reasonable standard. The Housing Executive is not willing to provide sufficient grants. It is trying to force the tenants out of the cottages and into Strabane. Many people have resided in those cottages all their lives, and some of their parents resided there before them. They have reared their children in those cottages. They would prefer to stay there, instead of being forced out because they do not have the appropriate amenities. Will the Minister give earnest consideration to the need of that district of Castlederg?

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I was interested in what the Minister of State said in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). He said that things were looking rosy in Northern Ireland in reports up to 30 September 1989 and he quoted a 9 per cent. increase in the economy to that time. Will the Minister in replying to the debate examine the reports from those same sources after 31 December 1989? As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicester, South, the indicators from all the sources that we take for granted as being the authority on the matter point to either a very low rate of increased industrial production or no increase at all. Some sectors are even

forecasting a fall. The Government's response might indicate a degree of complacency that would be totally unwarranted.
In the next couple of years up to and beyond 1992 it is incumbent on not only the Government but the public representatives, industrialists, workers, and everyone else in Northern Ireland to seek new and innovative ways of enhancing the prospect of increasing production and job creation within Northern Ireland. At the same time, we must make it attractive and easier for investment to be brought into Northern Ireland. We have a continuation year after year of safe and tried measures. I suggest that it is time for us to look at new schemes, new ideas and new models, not only in industrial development per se but in tourist promotion, the growth of which could be equal to the growth of industrial development in the 1990s and beyond.
The Northern Ireland tourist board has been laying low for the past couple of years under the guise of revamping its ideas or evolving a new strategy. We are still waiting, and I know that a document was issued, but nothing is happening. We may have missed the boat on the tourist potential for Northern Ireland's economy always because tourism should be a primary industry allied to the normal industrial base to which we usually refer when talking about economic development.
There is much talk about small industry and small business, but the small farmer, the small fisherman or the small self-employed builder are not placed in those categories. They are not treated with the same urgency and do not receive the same open-handedness from the public purse.
It is perhaps appropriate that in the order the Department of Agriculture is first on the list. I remind the Minister that on several occasions in the recent past I have reminded him of the great difficulties of small farmers whose real income is reducing year by year. Their profitability has virtually been wiped out in many of the sectors in which they operate, yet there does not seem to be genuine concern for what is, after all, Northern Ireland's base industry.
The small farmer needs to be given even a temporary hand. I refer especially to the hill cow subsidy. I do so with some parochialism because my constituency is hilly. The hill livestock compensatory allowance was recently increased. The increase was welcome but totally derisory when compared with the inflation of the past couple of years. That can be added to the farmer's troubles over milk quotas and the green pound values. Presumably such issues will be addressed in Brussels at the end of this month and at the beginning of April. However, what happens if the result of the negotiations is unsatisfactory? Is there a contingency plan? If there is not, many small farmers in Northern Ireland will go under and, as I have said, they form the rock base for our whole population, especially in the rural areas.
I shall stray slightly from agriculture because I want to deal with fishery matters, which are particularly important in my constituency. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister who will reply to the debate and his colleague who is in charge of health and social services and who sits in another place have not seen fit to alleviate the grave hardship that fishermen in my constituency and in other constituencies in Northern Ireland, especially in North Down and Strangford, have suffered since December. The Minister knows the arguments well because I have made


them to him verbally and in writing. It is pathetic that no real effort has been made to alleviate the problem. I understand that it would be primarily a DHSS programme, but I should like to think that when he is responding the Minister will lend his support to such a concept. He has not done so in the past.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of unemployment benefits for fishermen is of national as well as provincial importance? Does he agree that we should press the Minister to make representations to his colleagues in the Department of Social Security?

Mr. McGrady: I welcome the intervention of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and support his interesting idea. Such an approach would have my full backing.
If I may be parochial for a moment, I ask the Minister to expedite after 20 years the minimal proposal that is now on his desk for improving the harbour facilities at Ardglass in County Down. He knows the arguments very well, and I should like to think that he will make a positive and immediate response. Promises have been made, broken, made again, and then broken again for 20 years. Very little has been done to increase the fishing fleet at Ardglass. The improvements sought would at least serve as a salve to soothe the hardship that fishermen have endured since last December.
I commend the Minister for establishing the interdepartmental committee on rural regeneration. Although these are early days, and too soon to seek from the Minister a response to that committee's output, I ask him to treat its recommendations as a matter of urgency and not let them go the way of all previous rural programmes in Northern Ireland over the past two decades. They paid lip service to regeneration but were pigeonholed and never implemented. I hope that under the chairmanship of a permanent secretary in the Northern Ireland Office the interdepartmental committee will produce results in the near future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The degree of seriousness with which the question of regeneration is taken can be assessed by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other Ministers met the rural action project team recently and announced that its work would continue to be funded. In addition to the interdepartmental committee headed by the permanent secretary to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, direct contact is being maintained. Although I am not one for making commitments or giving assurances, I feel strongly about implementing an effective rural improvement programme so that people can stay in the countryside rather than feel that they must slide towards Belfast or slide out of Northern Ireland. Such a contribution would be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for that information, and I commend his course of action. I hope that he will always keep in mind the fact that rural regeneration depends entirely on a multi-disciplinary approach. It is not simply a matter of farming or of housing; it embraces a number of factors. I commend to

the Minister a small community project in my own constituency, the Seeconnell community project, which is almost a microcosm of the Minister's attempts—and a very successful one.
I turn to the Department of Economic Development and refer to answers that I received to my questions Nos. 159 and 160, which I cite because they caused me both despair and great annoyance. I asked how many visits to Northern Ireland were made over the last three fiscal years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 by firms seeking inward investment. The numbers were 190, 180 and 214 respectively, making a total of 584. I asked for an analysis of the number of firms who were invited to visit or who did visit my constituency, which qualifies for full grant aid and is therefore deemed by the Government to be a deprived area. Over those same three years, the numbers were four, four and four respectively—less than 3 per cent. of the total number of inward investment visits.
When one analyses the entire answer, one can plot certain areas—Mid-Ulster is one of them—in which, it seems, there is a scarcity of visits. If one were to plot those areas politically, one could come to the conclusion—though I should hate to do so—that there was a tendency not to bring investment to the areas of highest unemployment where the people have national leanings. If that is the case, I hope that it will be corrected. Certainly the statistics point clearly in that direction. I ask the Minister to look at the reply to which I have referred and to determine whether a change of direction by the Industrial Development Board is required.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who have been involved in bringing to Northern Ireland people considering new investment and job creation find it offensive that such people are encouraged by the IDB to go to the very areas that the hon. Gentleman is promoting? This is done despite personal contact by other Members working on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. McGrady: I cannot answer for the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is one case, whereas I can quote five in which the course of events was in the opposite direction. That rather nullifies his remarks.
The statistics provided by the IDB to the Department support what I am saying. If I am wrong, those statistics are wrong; if the statistics are right, I am right. It is as simple as that. The figures are there for anyone who wants to look at them.
On the question of industrial development—specifically, the attraction of industry to Northern Ireland—I should like to refer to two matters that have always puzzled me. The first, which has been mentioned already, is the cost of energy. Why is the cost of electricity constantly being increased more than is necessary to make the industry viable? Is it simply a case of creating artificial profitability for the purposes of privatisation? If, as appears to be the case, that is what is being done, it is detrimental to the concept of a cheap production area—a concept that the IDB is trying to sell abroad.
The second point is one which, to my mind, has never received any attention: why has the bank rate in Northern Ireland always been 2 per cent. higher than normal lending rates in the rest of the United Kingdom, even though the minimum lending rate is fixed in London and the sources and destinations of Nothern Ireland bank deposits are in London? An artificially dear economic climate is being


created. Why is this allowed? Is it not a disincentive to investment? Would it not be cheaper to get finance elsewhere? It seems to me that this and the high cost of electricity are two self-imposed hurdles that we could do without.
Small farmers in my constituency are now being charged between £3,000 and £6,000 to be provided with an electricity connection to their premises. They just cannot afford such a charge. That means that they have to do without electricity, so they do not modernise and, therefore, cannot increase their income. It is a vicious circle. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who is in charge of agriculture in the Province, will see whether it is possible to alleviate the problems of small farmers who do not have a mains electricity supply. It may be that Northern Ireland Electricity, with its very high overheads, has to make such charges, but the consumers certainly cannot afford to pay them. Thus small farmers find themselves in an impossible position.
The Minister did not mention housing, although I believe that the hon. Member for Leicester, South did. I am greatly concerned about this matter, and I obtained some figures yesterday. The Department says that the housing budget is better than it has ever been. The Housing Executive built 4,620 houses in 1981–82, but its target for 1990–91 is 1,000.

Mr. William Ross: We are all interested in housing. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would tell me under which heading in the order he finds housing. I looked, but it was not clear to me that it was mentioned anywhere. That worried me a great deal, and I hope to make that point later.

Mr. McGrady: I hope that the hon. Member will make that point and will support my comments. I was referring to its absence.

Mr. Stott: Vote 2 on page 8 provides
For expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing services, including certain grants in aid.
The hon. Member is therefore entitled to draw attention to housing problems under that heading.

Mr. McGrady: I am always grateful for assistance from any hon. Member. I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for reminding me of that vote.
The Housing Executive is responsible for administering grants. In 1985–86 they amounted to £60 million, but they had been reduced to £32 million in 1989–90—a reduction of 60 per cent. There has been an 80 per cent. reduction in house building and a 60 per cent. reduction in the amounts available for grants. I strongly believe that there is a death wish over the Housing Executive, a body that I have ardently supported since 1973. Whether that has come about because of departmental restrictions or whether it has come from within, the Housing Executive seems to be about to fail in its primary purpose. Although one can admire its innovation, the outreach scheme and all the grant schemes that it operates, the basic purpose of a public housing authority is to provide housing for people who cannot otherwise afford it. The house building programme for 1990–91 has been reduced to a paltry 1,000 houses—an inadequate response to increasing housing needs. Housing Executive statistics show that the number of people who are in urgent need of housing has increased since last year.
In referring to the Department of Health and Social Services, I shall be particularly parochial and refer to the on-going saga of the Downe hospitals in Downpatrick. It started when I began public life in 1961, believe it or not, and since then matters have been bandied about from pillar to post. The difficulty is that every time a conclusion is reached a new examination has to be carried out. We are suffering from paralysis by analysis. I ask the Minister to break the log-jam.
The case for the Downe replacements has been made. Two parts—the geriatric and the maternity sections—have been provided and the general surgical section remains to be provided. I should like the Minister to refer to his ministerial colleague, who cannot answer in the House, the on-going attempt to downgrade this group of hospitals so that someone with a financial knife can cut them off. I refer especially to the lack of urgency to provide ophthalmology services in the Downe unit of management and to fill the third permanent anaesthetist post, both of which have been promised for a considerable time, but only lip service has been paid to filling the need.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the St. Leonard's nursing home at Warrenpoint—a home for mentally and physically disabled people. Some of the residents have been there for 20 years; they are a family and they are happy there. The unit is well managed and economical and the patients are well cared for. I have been asking the Southern health and social services board and the Department to still the rumour, which is causing great distress, that patients who have had close associations with the nursing home for two decades are now threatened with dispersal. I was assured that no decision had been made. Yet I now discover that one of the most tragic cases in the history of Northern Ireland—I shall not refer to the person by name, but the case has been the subject of a television documentary—has been moved out this week after 20 years in that environment. That completely contradicts the information given to me by the Department and the board and it is a despicable and inhuman action to have taken in the circumstances. If the Minister wants further details, I shall be happy to supply them.
The Department of Health and Social Services has made great play of the lack of take-up of family credit in Northern Ireland. But, as I said in opening my remarks, Northern Ireland is made up largely of small farmers and proprietors of small firms—many of them self-employed. Because of the tax system, building labourers, for example, have to be self-employed because of the exemption certificate qualifications. I ask the Department to simplify the form issued and the responses and proofs that they require. Otherwise people will be deprived of their entitlement because of the bureaucracy surrounding their claim. I recommend a much simpler and more easily completed form and request for information.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) in criticising the way in which these orders are taken without our having the power to amend or debate them in any meaningful way. Now that there appears to be little prospect of a political settlement in Northern Ireland in the near future, will the Government face their


responsibilities by granting parliamentary democracy to the Province and legislating for Northern Ireland in the same way as for all other parts of the United Kingdom?
I refer first to vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development vote. On the development of tourism, I welcome the appointment of Mr. Paul Lavery as the Northern Ireland tourist board's new marketing director. He takes over at a time of real challenge to the industry in both parts of Ireland. The tourist board is extending its marketing offensive into Europe. I hope that it will get an excellent response and that we shall have many more European visitors to our lovely Province.
As one who, on occasions, likes to indulge in a little angling, I am concerned that in some parts of Northern Ireland charges to local anglers have increased substantially. Those increases could be due in part to rising costs but in large part they are what someone in authority feels that the market will stand. In effect, "the market" is the overseas visitor, who is exploited by unscrupulous operators who milk him for his interest in his sport. In many cases, local anglers just cannot afford the exorbitant charges for the right to fish in their own rivers. Without the contribution of local anglers, who pay for bailiffing and other local services, the angling scene would become a free-for-all from which no one would benefit. I hope that the tourist board will recognise that unacceptable state of affairs which is prevalent in our good angling waters. The activities of those so-called entrepreneurs who rely on state services to control poaching and pollution must be curtailed so that everyone, visitors and anglers alike, can benefit from our natural resources.
With regard to vote 3 and community projects, I am concerned about allegations that the Department of Economic Development is considering major cuts in the ACE—Action for Community Employment—programme, particularly when it is generally believed that more funds will be made available in the forthcoming Budget. The Minister should be aware that the purpose of that scheme was to provide meaningful employment for our long-term unemployed. I know from experience how much a year's community work can mean to those unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.
There can be no justifiable reason why any cut in the employment programme should be considered. Managers in the various projects should be more than capable of working within their existing budgets, particularly under the leadership of Mr. Cecil Graham and his staff who have done so much to make the ACE concept so successful in Northern Ireland.
With regard to vote 5, I refer to the previous appropriation debate in which I expressed concern about a decision to grant a prospecting licence for the Cavehill area of Belfast. I am still concerned about that and my concern is shared by more than 10,000 people who have expressed horror at the fact that that beautiful landscape might be subjected to any form of interference through mining.
The Minister should be aware of what happened in the town of Cavencaw in the Omagh district of County Tyrone, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), where a prospecting licence was granted to Rio Tinto-Zinc. I am sure that the

hon. Member for Mid-Ulster will support me when I say that an area of outstanding natural beauty there has been pillaged and plundered in that prospecting operation.

Mr. John D. Taylor: And in the Boyne valley, too.

Mr. Walker: I will leave that issue to other hon. Members who may be more qualified to speak about it.
The people in the area to which I have referred will confirm that the prospecting operation is equivalent to an open-cast mine. Habitats in that area have been destroyed for ever and thousands of years of evolution have gone down the drain. Under those circumstances, is it any wonder that the people of north Belfast are concerned? They are very suspicious of the hole-in-the-corner method of granting the licence and the surreptitious way in which news of the granting has leaked out. It is now the duty of the Department of Economic Development to allay the fears of the public and I call on the Government to define specifically the area of the Cavehill and Belfast mountains that they are prepared to exclude from any fresh quarrying or mining operations.
With regard to vote 3 and the Department of the Environment, I want to bring to the notice of the Minister the problems caused by the disruption of the water supply in the Cavehill area. Many of my constituents in that area have had their water supplies severely restricted for long periods. The problem seems to have been caused by a housing development which was allowed to take place at a level which puts additional stress on the existing 20-year old water supply system which could not possibly cope with the requirements imposed on it. Attempts to remedy the situation with a new main resulted in poor infill compaction, causing innumerable breaks in the existing main and resulting in many instances of water cut-off. There is still noticeable continuous settlement in line with the newly laid main, and soil movement is causing distress to other underground services in the area. I am anxious that a proposed link with another main be undertaken as a matter of urgency to give an alternative supply to residents in the upper Cavehill area who have suffered greatly at much too frequent intervals through being denied a water supply.
The Government should give thought to four points in an attempt to save taxpayers' money. First, planners should liaise with the relevant services before granting development permission. Secondly, only experienced staff should supervise contracts. Thirdly, the retention period on pipe-laying contracts should be extended to at least five years. Fourthly, the roads service should ensure that there is a materials matching concept so that there will be no patchwork effect in the final reinstatement.
On the Department of Health and Social Services, vote 1, I am alarmed, as are many general practitioners in my constituency, about the criteria announced by the Department in the designation of deprived areas on a percentage basis. In certain deprived areas, financial allowances are available to GPs to facilitate improving services to people. The index used in the United Kingdom caters for 20 different criteria. The criterion that was used to formulate the Northern Ireland figure was based on the 1981 census, and it resulted in 14 per cent. deprivation in Northern Ireland, compared with 18 per cent. in England and 26 per cent. in Scotland. The figure for Wales was not available. I state categorically that there must be something seriously amiss in that calculation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the new terms for Belfast, greater west Belfast and large sections of east Belfast are all outside the area of deprivation?

Mr. Walker: I was not aware of that. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will take note of it and answer the accusation.
Everyone knows that deprivation in Northern Ireland is at an all time high. The 14 per cent. deprivation can never be justified. The DHSS findings which resulted in that figure should be published in full so that all interested parties can he given the opportunity to comment. I am particularly anxious that that be done as soon as possible, as I understand that GPs are being pressured to accept the figure, which could result in a serious financial shortfall for the sick and infirm who are in most need.

Mr. McGrady: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Jarman indices which determine such areas lack two indices which are applied in the rest of the United Kingdom? I refer to the under-fives and the unskilled. If those indices were applied to Northern Ireland, there would be a much higher deprivation figure.

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am aware of the Jarman indices. That is why the Minister should be aware of my case. It underlines why the figure of 14 per cent. cannot be justified.
I am appalled by the Government's reticence about providing a magnetic resonance imaging facility in Northern Ireland. For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members, that revolutionary scanning equipment is essential in diagnosing medical conditions beyond the reach of the out-dated X-ray machines currently used in many of our hospitals. Time and again, in response to public demand, medical personnel involved in hospital X-ray facilities have given considered advice to the DHSS on the necessity for such machines to be provided in the Province. The Government have persistently opposed their provision with the lamest of excuses. They say that they are waiting for a Medical Research Council report, but that is now obsolete in the light of clinical experience in Europe and America. They also say that the MRI facility is in its infancy—a strange statement when one considers that there are 27 such machines operating in the United Kingdom and one in Dublin. They were installed as long ago as 1980 and it is expected that a further 23 will be installed within the next 12 months.
Other excuses such as a lack of funds are equally unacceptable, given that the Minister refused charitable financial assistance when it was offered in 1988. Patients are adversely affected by the delay in diagnosis and the traumatic effects of being sent to Dublin or England for scanning. At present, more than 100 people per month are sent. The Government should be aware that 68 per cent. of the Eastern board's X-ray equipment, with a value of £5,639,880, is more than 10 years old.
Modern MRI equipment would give much less irradiation and would go a long way towards replacing the outdated machines. The approximate cost would be £1·4 million for a building and the instrumentation, with running costs of £150,000 per year, based on 240 patients per month. The costs and trauma of sending patients to England would be more than recouped through the installation of such a machine. Such discrimination in the

treatment of our citizens is to be deplored. I trust that the Government will take the necessary action to remedy that disgraceful state of affairs as a matter of extreme urgency.
Figures just released show a 30 per cent. drop in the number of people going for eye tests in Northern Ireland since the Government introduced a charge for them. The worrying factor in the figures is that the number of people aged over 60 who have had eye tests has fallen by two thirds, or more than 60 per cent. Naturally, the Minister challenged those figures. He said that there was a rush to have free eye tests before the charge was introduced and that the availability of ready-made glasses was also a factor. But the ready-made glasses could be detrimental to those who choose that method of acquiring spectacles. Eye tests can detect the early stages of illnesses such as glaucoma, hypertension, diabetes, cataracts and brain tumours. People have only one pair of eyes to last a lifetime and they deserve the best possible care. The Government should reconsider the imposition of the charge, particularly on elderly people caught in the poverty trap and therefore outside the existing criteria.
At the conference on developing services for old people, the Minister of Health said that he wanted to create a new culture which would provide a sensitive and responsive way of working for the needs of the elderly. He said that most elderly people wish to spend their remaining years in their own homes and that the right balance of care should be provided to help them to achieve that with dignity and independence. I agree with those sentiments, but in the prevailing circumstances in Northern Ireland they need to be backed with the necessary finance to bring them to fruition.
In my area I am constantly reminded that the resources are not likely to be available to give elderly people a reasonable home help service. In my constituency I have several elderly people who live alone and receive only half an hour of home help per day. That is not the right balance to enable them to live with dignity and independence.
The Minister should also consider the position of carers and their struggle to care for elderly relatives. He said that he was providing increased support. It could not be too soon. But for the efforts of completely unselfish, dedicated carers in our community, there would be a breakdown in the section of the Health Service responsible for the well-being of the elderly.
No matter how the Government juggle with the figures, it is completely unacceptable that 42 per cent. of patients in Northern Ireland have been waiting more than a year for operations. On those figures, the Government must accept the allegation that they are using the sick as political pawns in an attempt to set up the Health Service for privatisation. It is an irrefutable fact that people who cannot afford it are opting for private treatment rather than spending painful years on the waiting lists. It is an indictment of the Government that they should create conditions in which people are suffering for interminable lengths of time. Waiting lists must be reduced and it is the Government's responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that objective.
Finally, I am disappointed at the Minister's refusal to meet a deputation on behalf of the Clanwillian homes and to discuss the refused planning application relating to No. 4 Blaris road, Lisburn. The Minister says that he cannot become involved in a specific planning application. Why not? I ask that because the planning directorate did not take many aspects of the proposal into account, including


planning considerations and the provisions for particular services in connection with the proposal. Furthermore, the Minister should be well aware that all political parties and Members of Parliament as well as Lisburn borough council are in favour of the application.
I advise the Minister that there is serious concern in the area about why he has chosen not to meet the deputation. So far as I am aware, there have been other instances in which the Minister has used his powers to overturn a decision by the planning directorate when he felt that there was justifiable reason to do so. I ask the Minister to meet the deputation and to listen to the various factors surrounding the application before an appeal is considered.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by making a brief reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment to hear what I am saying, but I am sure that his hon. Friends will agree with my comments.
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Member concentrated on fundamental matters, with a rare combination of passion and reason. I hope that he will accept the reassurance from someone who represents a constituency on the other side of the Irish sea that we regard murder—whether it is murder in Northern Ireland, north Wales, northern England or the north of Scotland—as murder. From time to time it is a good thing for all of us in England, Wales and Scotland to be reminded by speeches such as that of the hon. Gentleman that murders are still continuing on a horrendous scale in Northern Ireland—in the name of politics. Of course, they have nothing to do with what we understand as politics, and everything to do with unreason, with fanaticism and with all that is unacceptable to a democratic society.
I should like to deal briefly with two points that have not been raised so far in the debate. The first relates to education. In a recent debate in the House I spoke about Northern Ireland's excellent education system. That bears repetition. The secondary education system in Northern Ireland is the envy of those of us in Wales who know of its achievements and quality. I hope that in the Northern Ireland appropriations relating to the funding of education there is sufficient money to ensure that the secondary sector does not go the way that it is showing signs of going in Wales, at least.
Rural education in Wales is now in a dreadful state. The comprehensive high schools, many of which have an excellent reputation of a great Celtic educational tradition acquired over many years, are facing financial privation. Teachers are demoralised and the schools are in a poor condition. That is appreciated by the pupils, as one can see if one looks at the graffiti and listens to how they talk about what is happening.
Northern Ireland suffers from the same rural problems as many parts of Wales, including my consituency of Montgomery. If we do not provide a quality education system so that pupils acquire the ability to start businesses in their constituencies and districts, they will leave.
Hon. Members have spoken about small businesses. The political situation in Northern Ireland may provide a

greater incentive to leave than there is to leave Wales. It is vital, therefore, that every incentive and inducement should be given to people to remain. What better inducement could there be than an education system in which headmasters are not struggling day after day to pay for the exercise books and pencils, as is happening in England and Wales?
Will the Minister assure the House that the sums provided for education are ample for all the changes deriving from the education reform order? Will he assure us that sufficient money is available fully to support the commitments made to integrated education where it develops? If, under the new legislation, many more schools qualify for support, may we have an assurance that the Government will provide the resources to honour the pledge made to integrated schools?
The Fair Employment Commission is at least showing signs of doing excellent work in Northern Ireland. Indeed, its aims and achievements have not been sufficiently publicised elsewhere. It would do the reputation of the Government and the United Kingdom good in Northern Ireland if its achievements could be itemised so that the House and Governments of other countries that look with interest at what is going on in Northern Ireland can see precisely the effort and financial backing put into the pursuit of equal opportunities of all kinds. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have reviewed fully the resourcing of the commission and that he is happy that the allocation does not need to be increased in the light of the commission's ever-increasing responsibilities?

Mr. William Ross: Reference was made earlier to the short period allowed for the previous debate. It is only right to put on record that the emergency provisions order is normally dealt with in one and a half hours. Had it not been for the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), we would have been limited to that period. Because of his efforts we had much longer. That debate and this one highlight again the problems experienced in Northern Ireland in trying to deal with unalterable wordings of measures in a limited time.
A few days ago the Under-Secretary had the privilege to stand on one of the prime blocks of land not only of Northern Ireland, but of the United Kingdom. He saw what can happen when a sea wall breaks. I hope that he took on board the implications and dangers that exist along the shores of Lough Foyle. If the Minister had looked to the north side of the mouth of the River Roe, just within his view would have been a bank, where there is no sea wall, which suffers grievously from sea damage year on year. The local environment would gain enormous protection if many large boulders were put down to stop the soft sandy soil washing away.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Capital Allowances Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Ross: Lough Foyle is one of the major areas of the British Isles for over-wintering wild fowl. The erosion of that coastline has been detrimental to the habits of wintering birds. I hope that the Minister will do something to protect that coastline. If the Department does not have the resources, perhaps the Minister will look for resources from the European Community. Conservation is the in-word nowadays and we should make every effort to protect not only the environment but high-quality farming land.
When the Minister visited Ballykelly he saw the break in the sea wall and he will appreciate that local farmers were not happy—no one can be happy when they suffer such as disaster.
There is a case for the Government seriously reconsidering how sea defences will be kept in shape in future. We hear a lot about global warming and God only knows what will happen in the next century—such warming could have a disastrous effect not only on Ballykelly, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
There is evidence to suggest that there are, periodically, storms of great violence that cause enormous damage to many people. Recently I asked the Prime Minister to consider setting up a disaster fund for the United Kingdom from which people could draw. I do not believe that the cost of such storms can be left to local disaster funds; nor should it be left to the individual to bear the cost of something that, if not uninsurable, is insurable only at an unreasonable cost.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the Government's failure to make representations to the EC for assistance for farmers, fishermen and other people who suffer from storm damage? On many occasions the Community has assisted areas throughout the EC that have been damaged by storms. First of all, however, the national Government must make an application for assistance, but the Government had failed to do that in recent weeks to gain assistance for Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is correct up to a point, because the Government have received two tranches of £220,000 and £440,000, which are infinitesimal sums in relation to the amount of damage caused—

Mr. Taylor: Nothing for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ross: As far as I am aware, no money has gone to Northern Ireland, but I have already written to the permanent secretary expressing the hope that the Government will apply, if they have not already done so. We must remember that it is the individual who is at risk and who has suffered. The Government are not grabbing the money to restore a road or a bridge that has been washed away. On this occasion we are trying to help the individual and I hope that the Government will consider my request seriously, because the threat of storms will not go away. As our society becomes more dependent on machines, more highly sophisticated greater problems are created every time something goes wrong.
As for the Ballykelly incident, I am no engineer, but I have some experience of water. I hope that the

Government will consider the possibility of making permanent the present bank which they have put across the mouth of the Burnfoot river so that waves cannot break through the river banks in the future. Also I hope that they will consider raising the bank on the left-hand side of the Burnfoot to the same height as the other. I understand that the storm and flood overtopped the bank on one side, but not on the other, so I think that work needs to be done. I also hope that they will find a lot more pumps to pump the water away, because I do not like the idea of the soldiers paddling around in it any more than I like my constituents paddling around in i t, and I am sure that they are thoroughly fed up with the whole affair.
As I said, the Minister was standing on one of the prime blocks of land in the United Kingdom. It grows grass, which has to be cut, and, if The Guardian this morning is to be believed, someone is making an awful lot of money out of cutting remarkably little grass in the airfield at Ballykelly. I should be grateful if we could have an assurance that that is being thoroughly investigated. I hope that that leak has not harmed the investigation, because if that sort of fraud is going on it should be stopped as soon as possible because none of us is happy with it.
The Minister will probably know that a couple of my neighbours rent most of the airfield for silage and hay. They are not very happy because they feel that their names may be dragged into the matter, and they are just farmers trying to make an honest day's living. Somebody has been breaking the law and I hope that they are caught.
Having said that, and having got away with it by pure chance, I hope that the Government will seriously consider all the things that need to be done in Northern Ireland as well as stopping fraud and cutting grass on Ballykelly aerodrome.
I hope that the Government will question seriously the case that has undoubtedly been put to them that the fish laboratory at The Cutts, Coleraine should be moved. That would be wrong. The laboratory provides employment, and is close to the River Bush where, as the Minister knows, there is a large experimental undertaking, which is probably the most important study of salmon in Europe. I believe the station at The Cutts should remain and that the laboratory accommodation should be used to a greater extent. If people are to be moved, they should be moved back to Coleraine and not away from it, because it is the natural centre for that type of work.
I shall ask the Minister more questions on this subject, and I hope that he will follow them up and not sign the answers too readily before he has considered the implications of what lies behind the questions he is asked. He should ensure that he gets all the information because that might help his thinking.
I was glad that my hon. Friends mentioned angling earlier this evening.

Mr. Beggs: And poaching.

Mr. Ross: No, not poaching, just angling. I shall return to poaching, if my hon. Friend wishes me to, in a moment, but most of that is done by Donegal people off the north-west coast, in the salmon runs.
We also have a research vessel, the Lough Foyle, which is based in Belfast. That is not quite where I should like it to be, because I think that it should be in Coleraine.
In a recent answer the Minister told me that it cost £1,500 a day to run that vessel. They had managed to rent it out for 93 days last year and they got £93,000. That is not the way to make money, because one does not make money out of leasing a vessel if one loses £500 for every day that it is leased. It would be better if it were tied up on the dockside. I hope that if the vessel is leased again they will charge sufficient money to cover its running costs and will not depend on the International Fund for Ireland all the time. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the answers to my questions before giving them to me.
An order on angling has been pending for some two years and I have made representations about it. It would be excellent if the Government reconsidered their earlier attitude and presented the measure to the House as a Bill. The anglers and I would be much happier if they did. This is a sensitive subject which needs in-depth discussion. It is not controversial in a party-political sense. The measure has been delayed for two years already; a little longer would not make much difference. If changes have been made as a result of earlier representations, we could possibly make further changes to the measure if it were brought in as a Bill.
The Minister knows the arguments about the Limavady bypass. I hope that he will not allow anyone to slow up work on it. It is a choke point for east-west traffic in the northern half of Northern Ireland, and it needs to be built—soon. The economic study must be finished and the road put into the five-year programme. We do not want that done in the fifth or sixth year; we want it done in the first or second, so that the work can go ahead.
I am still worried about the slow provision of proper hospital facilities in Coleraine. I have had excellent responses from the Minister of State about this, but I still want the work pushed on as rapidly as possible.
Finally, I turn to industrial development in Northern Ireland, and particularly the activities of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Like all other Members who represent Northern Ireland, I have had long correspondence about various cases with LEDU, and sometimes I have been unhappy about the outcome. Some of my constituents have provided all the necessary reports and still wound up with no grant after spending several hundred pounds on accountants' fees——

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: More like several thousand.

Mr. Ross: I should not be surprised.
LEDU needs to be more careful when giving advice to people; it represents the lower end of the scale. We need to rethink what we are trying to do to help people who invent things in Northern Ireland. Sometimes they have ideas that could create jobs but no money with which to develop them. Patent costs are high, as are development costs. Inventors need proper advice to be able to get on with development at an early stage. They need advice on where to find the necessary expertise. It is not always available.
The Government should be prepared to find the money for this. They find money for people like De Lorean and all sorts or wonderful projects that cost millions and come to nothing. I should prefer a few thousand pounds to be lost on a local man's efforts, instead of losing millions on

a foreigner's efforts. Will the Minister provide development money for local people? It could be repayable if the project took off, but sometimes the money will be lost. According to the IDB report, local people can develop projects that create jobs for half the price that it would cost those from outside the Province.
I am horrified, looking at the Government's expenditure plans for 1992–93, to see that they intend to cut the public contribution to LEDU. I hope that LEDU will not depend too much on private sector funding; the private sector in Northern Ireland does not have enough high risk capital to provide the necessary money or to encourage small business men who are trying to create jobs.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As has been pointed out, we cannot amend the motion. However, this debate gives Northern Ireland Members an opportunity to explain to the Government the problems being experienced in the Province. In all fairness, we live there and we represent the people, so we are more likely to be aware of the problems. It is wise and good to seize this opportunity to acquaint Northern Ireland Ministers with the issues.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) used the term, "the North of Ireland". That term is misunderstood in Northern Ireland and he would be unwise to continue to use it if he wishes to serve in Northern Ireland in some future Government. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) excellently acquitted himself when speaking about the tragedies in his constituency. He said that words could kill. One of the problems in Northern Ireland is that words are certainly misunderstood.
When a new Secretary of State is appointed to Northern Ireland, he is given a brainwashing session for 10 days and educated on what words to use or not to use. Only after those 10 days is he released to the public in Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too soon."] Some may well think that that is too soon. One of the phrases that he is educated not to use is, "the North of Ireland". The correct term for the state is "Northern Ireland", and for the country is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Even the Dublin Government now refer to the Province by its correct name of Northern Ireland. The term, "North of Ireland" is used only by the IRA and its fellow travellers. That is the general understanding within Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Leicester, South uses that term, he will be misunderstood in Northern Ireland. He should think before he repeats such an offensive term because otherwise he will be resented in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In the light of our previous debate, there is the additional danger that the use of such a term might lead some to think that we were making a claim to jurisdiction over Donegal.

Mr. Taylor: That is true. Indeed, it would be easier to assimilate Donegal today than it was in 1921 because half the population have had to leave in the past 70 years.
I shall deal briefly with some of the supplementary Estimates. It is interesting to note which items are dramatically reduced because savings have been made during the current year, and which items are considerably increased because costs have increased above estimates. I


shall deal first with the Department of Agriculture. There is a great concern in the Province about the increase in brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The estimates show a considerable increase in expenditure in those two areas. Can the Government provide any evidence to show that the problem is now being brought under control?
Page 6 of the estimates shows savings in the European Community schemes—for example, the agricultural and horticultural development scheme and the farmland and conservation grants scheme. They are huge savings, and the reason given for them is that the initial interest in Northern Ireland is lower than had been envisaged. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that Northern Ireland participates fully in those European Community schemes? Now that the Government have stated publicly that they are not being taken up, what are they doing to ensure that Northern Ireland has its fair share?
Another matter of concern in Northern Ireland is that expenditure on planting grounds for woodland have declined. I should like to see the Government doing more to promote the new woodland schemes in Northern Ireland, as has been happening in Scotland.
Page 9 deals with the milk quota. As we know, the production of milk in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, is presently above quota. What is the present situation with the milk quota in the Province? How far are we above quota, and have Northern Ireland's milk producers been sufficiently warned and advised about the problems that will arise if surplus production continues? Certainly, it will impose a major financial burden on milk producers if the situation is not brought under control in the present production year.
There is a reference on page 10 to the marine research vessel. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) spoke about that. In the context of the International Fund for Ireland I should like to mention the training centre for fishermen. They applied for a training centre in the port of Portavogie, but the application was rejected and they were told that they could travel to the existing centre in north Donegal. No one who listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea could seriously suggest that fishermen from Portavogie should go for training in north Donegal. I could give many reasons why that would not be advisable. The Government should use their influence to try to ensure that a proper training centre for fishermen in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie is considered. I hope that it will be set up in Portavogie.
Page 12 deals with the Department of Economic Development. Some hon. Members have already spoken about the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Industrial Development Board. I am involved in business in Northern Ireland and I certainly appreciate, although I have never received any grant from it, the work of LEDU throughout the Province. It is important to continue to support small business men throughout Northern Ireland. One of the attractions of LEDU is the way in which it has promoted the small business man and encouraged community involvement through its area boards and offices. I was concerned to see recently a leading Member of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, Dr. William Hastings, call for the abolition of LEDU. I hope that that will not be the policy of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: He is a member of the Minister's branch.

Mr. Taylor: That makes it even worse. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) confirms that Dr. William Hastings, who is a partisan and active politician in Northern Ireland, belongs to the same branch as the Minister who is to reply to the debate. I hope that when he is replying the Minister will say whether he intends to pursue the policy of Dr. William Hastings and abolish LEDU.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: No, the Minister will have a chance to reply at the end of the debate.

Mr. Bottomley: It is on a separate point.

Mr. Taylor: Very well.

Mr. Bottomley: I welcome the fact that in this instance the right hon. Gentleman is working on publicly available information and that there has not been a leak about members of the East Belfast Conservative Association.

Mr. Taylor: There are many leaks about who and what in Northern Ireland, but I am sure that we have a list of the three people who are members of the East Belfast Conservative Association.
I should like to turn to the economic development section on page 14 and speak about the importance of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. Reorganisation is taking pace in the Northern Ireland tourist board, and it was said that it would now have a new commercial emphasis. One of the first things that happened was the transfer of a civil servant to become the chief executive of the board. Those of us who are involved in business are not too convinced that a civil servant will be the main promoter of a commercal enterprise.
I have looked through the Northern Ireland tourist board's first annual report since the changes. As the Member for Strangford, one thing that worries me is the total failure to mention, let alone recognise, the importance of caravan holidays in Northern Ireland. One third of caravans in Northern Ireland are based in the Ards peninsula. We must get away from the idea that developing tourism means pumping more money into hotel and licensed premises. The caravan tourist industry is important to Fermanagh on the north coast, the Ards peninsula, and South Down around the Mourne mountains. Hopefully, we could attract more caravanners from Scotland, and, with the completion of the Channel tunnel, the continent. I hope that the Northern Ireland tourist board will not continue to ignore the importance of the caravan tourist industry. Certainly the borough and district councils are doing their utmost to promote the development of more caravan sites in the Province.
Page 20 of the estimates refers to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and to the £90,000 spent on further consultants' reports on the feasibility of privatising Northern Ireland electricity. I ask the Minister for an up-to-date report and for an indication of how much more money he intends to spend on consultants' reports before deciding whether or not to privatise the Northern Ireland Electricity Service.
Page 22 refers to the Department of the Environment, and once again the question of privatisation arises—in


respect of the aviation services. Northern Ireland Airports recently advertised for a new chief executive—the third in three years. That suggests that there must be some problems as to who actually manages Northern Ireland Airports—the chairman of the board or the chief executive.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The chairman is a Tory.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not say that. However, apparently the chairman of Northern Ireland Airports is a Tory, and that is unfortunate. Incidentally, at school he was a fag to one of the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
The advertisements for a new NIA chief executive appeared in several publications. Some of them sell in Northern Ireland, such as the Belfast Telegraph and The Times,whereas others have very little circulation in Northern Ireland, such as Flight Internationaland The Irish Times. It is interesting that the advertisement which appeared in the Northern Ireland press was different from that in the publications which do not sell well in the Province. The advertisement in the Northern Ireland publications simply advertised for a chief executive, whereas that appearing in the other publications also mentioned that Belfast international airport was to be privatised.
Can the Minister tell the House why different advertisements appeared in different publications? It is very strange that the public should be misled in that way. Also, what is the programme for the privatisation of Aldergrove airport?
Page 25 of the estimates refers to the royal harbour at Donaghadee in my own constituency, which is a contentious issue locally. As I said, the reference is to the "royal" harbour. There was an understanding that, as it is a royal harbour, no berthing charges would be made, but now there is a scheme to introduce them. I ask the Minister to re-examine that proposal to see whether that policy is consistent with Donaghadee's status as a royal harbour.
The hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. McGrady) referred to the fishing industry. In this context, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Portavogie harbour, which was designed for about 60 fishing boats, now accommodates 85. In February this year two boats were damaged. They could not get into the harbour because it was chock-a-block. There is a great need for the Department to look into the capacity of that harbour and to proceed with an enlargement to accommodate the additional boats.
On page 26 there is a list of road schemes. Because of the shortage of time I am unable to go into them in detail, but I must ask the Department to look closely at some projects in my constituency. The question of the bypass for Comber has been with us for years. Comber is growing constantly and is chock-a-block with traffic early in the morning and at five o'clock in the evening. The bypass is required urgently and I ask that it be given greater priority.
The Minister will probably be able to give a very favourable reply to my inquiry about the Donaghadee road out of Newtownards. I hope that he can tell us that the scheme will start this year. The other two schemes to which I shall refer are in my constituency and in that of the

hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The first relates to the Castlereagh road roundabout. There is serious difficulty in emerging from the Casaeldona estate on to the Knockbreda dual carriageway. We have been told that the difficulty cannot be overcome until the Castlereagh road roundabout has been improved. I hope that this, too, will be given priority. Then there is the Saintfield road-Knockbreda dual carriageway junction. Here, too, there is chaos in the early morning and in the late evening. I hope that the proposed scheme, which we have examined and which we welcome, will be given the priority that it deserves.
On page 34 one sees a great increase in expenditure. Many schemes are mentioned, but I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the Castle Court office block. Originally the cost was estimated at £7·5 million, but today the estimate is almost £16 million—an increase of more than 100 per cent. We deserve an explanation for that dramatic increase. It is unbelievable. I happen to be involved in a scheme in Royal Avenue near Castle Court, and in this regard I declare an interest. If my consultants came back and told me that the cost would be 100 per cent. more than they had originally said, I should not be standing here. There is something very wrong—unless, in the meantime, the scheme has been doubled in size. Clearly, we need an inquiry and an explanation for this dramatic increase.
Education is dealt with on page 40. I welcome the reference to the extension of Armagh Royal school, on whose board of governors I serve. In that case, the original estimate was £3,873,000, and the figure is now £3,883,000. That is very good estimating. I hope that the historic grant, which has been so slow in coming, will be given some attention and that the school will receive those funds as soon as possible.
On page 43 there is reference to expenditure on the two universities in Northern Ireland. These will now be the only universities in the United Kingdom whose students do not have to pay the poll tax. That being the case, we expect an increased number of students from Scotland, England and Wales. That will be good for university life in Northern Ireland. I hope that the youth of Great Britain who flee to Northern Ireland from the poll tax will find good facilities. I hope that the Government will provide more funds for expansion of the universities in Belfast and Coleraine.
Finally, I refer to the celebrations that we hope to have this year. I refer not to the tercentenary of the battle of the Boyne, though the present Government owe their existence to the victory at that battle, but to the bicentenary of Armagh observatory. I am glad that the observatory is mentioned. This is an important year for the observatory and I hope that the Government will be liberal in their support.
On page 10 of the draft order, we find that it will cost us £123,000 this year to maintain the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, which collapsed because of the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Consideration should be given to greater public use of the parliamentary buildings at Stormont. I know that there would be security problems in doing so, but there are security problems in the Palace of Westminster, too. There must be greater scope to hold functions and meetings at Stormont, to earn some money for the state and to give the Northern Ireland people the right of access to a building which is rightfully theirs.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Although the Stormont library is being increased and certain students are given access to it, Members of Parliament who are elected to serve the people of Northern Ireland do not have the right to use it. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should have that right?

Mr. Taylor: That is news to me. I did not know that students were allowed to use the library. I am horrified to hear that news. I understood that we had a right to use its

facilities. I have done so in one way or another without realising that I was misbehaving. I hope that that matter will be investigated, because it sounds serious.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Three hon. Members have risen. I understand that the Front Bench spokesmen would like to reply to the debate at about 11·5 pm. I hope that we can include in the debate everyone who wants to speak.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I should like to take up the comments of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) about the use of the Stormont parliamentary buildings. I understand that the library can be used by former Ministers of either the power-sharing executive or the Stormont Parliament, by a number of researchers and by students. I see no satisfactory reason why Northern Ireland Members should not be able to use not only that facility but some of the others in parliamentary buildings for which taxpayers pay. I trust that the Minister will look into that matter which falls within either his remit or that of the Department of Finance and Personnel.
The right hon. Member for Strangford referred also to the road network in Castlereagh. My constituency joins Strangford at the Castlereagh roundabout. The road services section of the Department of Environment decided that it would be pleasant to have a 20 ft. high concrete flyover at that site. The local community disapproved of that proposal and fought it at the Belfast urban area plan hearing. I am glad to say that the fight was successful. I represented the local community at the hearing and we were delighted that it recommended that the flyover should not be constructed but that an "at grade" level improvement should be made. The Department has proposed that traffic lights should be installed at each of the roads that now enter the roundabout and that the roundabout should be removed.
A problem exists, of which the right hon. Member for Strangford will be aware. The Castledona estate is a congested area where, after much pleading with the Department, it was agreed that traffic lights were needed where the road met the dual carriageway. We have been told, however, that the necessary money is not immediately available in the budget for this financial year and it is doubtful whether it will be made available next year. A tragedy is likely to occur if that money is not made available in the next financial year. I ask the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate—it is his Department's spending to which we are referring—to move that further up his list of priorities to ensure that the expenditure for that work falls within the coming financial year.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who referred to the Fruit of the Loom proposal for Londonderry, that it would be a tragedy if the prospect of 500 jobs were lost, especially in an area where there is a clear need for more employment. It matters little to me—or, I suspect, to any other Unionist present tonight—whether those jobs go to those of nationalist or of Unionist persuasion. They are jobs for the Province, and I trust that the Minister responsible for that Department will do everything possible to ensure that they are secured for Northern Ireland.
In the same vein, a depressing article about the employment prospects in west Belfast appeared in this morning's edition of The Irish Times.It is clear that, as a part of the United Kingdom, west Belfast should enjoy the benefits of being a part of the United Kindom. Even though its elected representative may not come to the House and, therefore, does not plead the case for his

constituents, there is a clear need for more employment prospects for west Belfast. I trust that the Department will not chicken out and let the people of west Belfast down because it does not like their Member of Parliament. I suspect that, if that were the criterion, certain other constituencies might be treated none too favourably.
I trust that the Minister, who is now showing a special interest in Ulster Conservatism, will take a special look at the prospects for his party in west Belfast, and do something to encourage the people of that constituency to believe that the United Kingdom can provide job prospects in an area where there is a great deal of deprivation.
The Minister is a member of the East Belfast association of the Conservative party. I am sure that he will accept from me my concern about housing in my constituency, which he now wants to adopt. As the Minister responsible for the deplorable housing situation in east Belfast, he will know that the waiting list for that area alone demonstrates a housing need greater than the housing provision that is being made for Northern Ireland as a whole. There are more than 2,000 people on waiting lists looking for housing in east Belfast. Statistics that I have show that on the A priority and urgent needs lists alone, there are more than 500 people waiting for housing in east Belfast; that is as many houses as the Housing Executive will be building in the whole of Northern Ireland, if not more.
It is not just in relation to house building that the Government's policy of cuts has been affecting the people of Northern Ireland. We have people waiting to get essential repairs carried out. A survey of house conditions in 1987 showed that 8·4 per cent. of the housing stock in Northern Ireland was unfit, while 14·1 per cent. required substantial repair. The Housing Executive's own stock was also in need of repair. Around 60,000 of the executive's properties required improvement and upgrading. That is more than one third of the executive's stock, which has in any case been substantially reduced as a result of the house sales policy that the Government have pursued. Incidentally, I approve of that policy, but I do so because it should leave more public money available to put into the housing of the executive and to make money available to build more houses. The policy is not achieving either of those ends. We are finding that once the money from rents has gone towards the meagre house building programme, the executive has next to nothing left to maintain the properties that it holds.
I have no doubt that the Minister will play statistical ping-pong with us on this one. It is easier to juggle statistics than facts. As everyone knows in Northern Ireland, fewer houses are being built and the need for housing is increasing. The Minister is happy to hand the problem over to the private sector and to tell it to build the houses. He is oblivious to the fact that a large section of the community in Northern Ireland cannot afford to buy houses or pay the vastly increasing mortgage rates.
I am paying nearly twice as much on my mortgage as I paid two years ago. The terrible point is that the Government's policy towards rents in Northern Ireland means that rents have increased more than mortgages. The Department has a policy of increasing rents on a formula of inflation plus 5 per cent. By 1993 the average Housing Executive rent will be about £25 a week. That may not seem a lot of money by Great Britain standards, but houses cost three times as much elsewhere in Great Britain


as in Northern Ireland. There is much less disposable income for property after the higher prices have been paid for consumer goods in the Province. The Housing Executive's bid for funding has been cut by £13·7 million. We can imagine that the executive, in making its bid, took cognisance of the fact that the Minister's policy required it to cut back. It is cutting £13·7 million off an already pruned budget.
As chairman of the environment committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly I pressed the Government at the time to extend repair programmes to modern post-war housing in which the residents could not afford to carry out essential repairs. The executive has had to trim back its grants and to target those in greatest need. As a result, the importance of prevention is being overlooked and that is a false economy. If people cannot afford to have necessary repairs carried out, the condition of the houses will deteriorate. Therfore, the people will need alternative accommodation which the executive cannot afford to provide and we end up with all sorts of housing problems.
I plead with the Minister to deal with housing on the basis of need instead of in relation to the finance that he would like to provide for housing. The need for housing is increasing and that requires a substantial increase in finances into public sector housing in the Province, particularly when the Belfast urban area will allow the executive to consider new areas for house building for which I trust the Minister will provide sufficient funds.
I have a plea to make about the system of planning approvals in Northern Ireland. As an elected council representative, I become increasingly frustrated at the way in which planning applications are dealt with.
The right hon. Member for Strangford and I serve on the same district council. At our last council meeting, 25 per cent. of the planning applications that we were asked to consider were for buildings that had already been constructed. There is a now a policy of "build now, apply later". The Minister has done nothing to introduce a reasonable policy on ex post facto applications. People are thumbing their noses at the Minister. His planning department is a joke. People no longer need to go through the normal process of applying for planning permission, because they simply go ahead and build. They know that, by virtue of the fact that the building exists, the planning department will not have the guts to tell them that it would not have given permission in the first place and that enforcement action should be taken.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is serious that people can proceed to build without even having building control approval?

Mr. Robinson: Yes. There clearly needs to be a link between building control approval and planning permission so that both must be applied for, either at the same time or within a certain period.
During the life of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the environment committee put a proposal to the then responsible Minister that there should be a strict penalty for those who submit applications after buildings have already been constructed. We suggested that about 20 times the normal application fee should be applied to those persons. The Minister must do something when a quarter of the people who require planning permission apply when structures have already been erected. It is time for the

Minister to do something, rather than sitting, waiting and hoping that, perhaps, people will obey the law and act according to the regulations. Of course, they will not do so.
It is not just Joe Citizen—the ordinary wee guy who is building an extension on his garage—who is acting in that way. Major public companies such as Shorts are the main offenders in our area. That company has built fences around its property without submitting a planning application. It submitted a planning application only when local residents objected to the Berlin wall that it was building. In the knowledge that it required planning permission, it did the same on other sites in the Province. If that was not enough, it then put in an application to have three massive tanks constructed on its site on Alanbrooke road.
The council was naturally concerned that the chemicals that might be in the tanks might affect the local residents, and it asked for a site meeting. The council was given a date and time that was agreed by the security personnel at Shorts, but it was later cancelled by Shorts management, who would not allow councillors to go in. The management said that they would need the names and addresses of all the people involved before they would be allowed on to the premises.
In the past few days I have found out why Shorts did not want the councillors in. It was because the tanks were already constructed. The Minister should do something about that disgraceful situation. Large companies such as Shorts are breaching planning laws, and their bad example is being followed by many others.
I have had meetings with several groups in my constituency who look after the mentally and physically handicapped. They do a remarkable job. Because they have a special love for the handicapped, they devote almost the whole of their lives to looking after them. I have seen the effects on their lives. I know how much they have sacrificed. If they did not do so, there would be a significant charge upon the state. I see how little the Government do to give assistance and succour to those people, if only in terms of looking after a handicapped person for a matter of hours, days or even a weekend to allow their carers to have at least a break from their exertion.
I was speaking to a lady who has two handicapped children. She must carry one of them upstairs on her back. She does that every day, every week, every month, and every year. She cannot get anybody to take over that responsibility. Who, by way of neighbours and friends, is likely to take over that responsibility? I trust that the whole issue of respite care can be tackled by the Government.

Mr. Stott: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Clearly, he speaks with a great deal of experience. When local government is working properly—I take it that in the Province it is not—in spite of the problems of i he past 10 years of Conservative Government, in the United Kingdom we have a system whereby people such as the hon. Gentleman described can get relief. They can go away on holiday and get a rest from what they do in their daily lives. The local social services committee in my constituency will provide social workers and other people from the department to give such people relief from the arduous tasks that they have to perform every day of their lives.

Mr. Robinson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is encouraging that in some areas of the United Kingdom such assistance is given. In Northern Ireland, because of the restrictions on local government, local authorities have no responsibility in relation to the Department of Health and Social Services. Indeed, it would be ultra vices for local government to spend any money on such a respite care scheme. Therefore, it is left to charities. I know of only one charity that is making moves to do the work that the Government refuse thus far to do. There is a great need and I believe that most people in Northern Ireland have great sympathy with it. I trust that the Minister will encourage his colleague with the responsibility to take action to ensure some relief for those who have done so much for society. It is important that people who are handicapped, whether mentally or physically, are maintained as an integral part of society, rather than put into hospitals, homes or other types of organisational structure. I trust that the Minister will consider that issue.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I draw the attention of the House to a remark in the commentary on public expenditure published in 1989:
Take-up of disability benefits is difficult to measure, and there has been only limited information available about the numbers who might be eligible.
It is an indictment of the Department and the health boards that, despite a survey made some years ago, we still do not have accurate figures on those who need care because of their disability.
In that context, I should like to ask some questions about the vote on the Department of Health and Social Services. There is a growing waiting list in most hospitals except Musgrave park, where there has been a marked decline in the waiting list. That decline was brought about because the orthopaedic specialists got together, targeted areas of need and, using new computer techniques, reduced the waiting list drastically. In spite of that, the hospital could do with another specialist appointment to deal with rheumatoid arthritis in the orthopaedic department. If that one extra specialist were appointed, it would have a tremendous impact on the needs of people throughout Northern Ireland because it is a regional specialty. Are there any plans in the Department for the appointment of such a specialist?
Recently an ex gratia payment was made to the Haemophilia Society for those who have contracted HIV as a result of blood plasma transfusions. Will people in Northern Ireland who were so infected be recipients from the same grant, or will that be done through the Department's budget in Northern Ireland? If so, how many are involved? I understand that between 32 and 52 people in Great Britain were affected, not because they were haemophiliacs but because they went through the normal process of an operation and the blood transfusion that they received infected them. Nothing has been done for such people. Is there any record of the numbers of people so affected in Northern Ireland? Is the Department prepared to make an ex gratia payment that is equivalent to the £20,000 to help those people to meet their challenges and needs?
If agencies of the Government make mistakes, without blame being attached, I believe that there should at least be compensation for the victims.
There has recently been a court case about the restrictions of the social fund. I asked earlier about the use of the social fund in Northern Ireland. Has the Department in Northern Ireland taken account of the court order? Are people with genuine needs now receiving special payments outside the limited number that were granted according to the Department's guidelines? Is the money that has been set aside in vote 3 of the Department of Health and Social Services for
the Belfast Social Security Centre and the paid order store at Lisahally as agent for the Department of Social Security
coming from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund or from the general Great Britain allocation? We are always told that we are receiving more benefits than other areas.
Is the money in the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund used in the best interests of developing the Northern Ireland economy and for the training of Northern Ireland young people, or is it being returned to the Treasury because it is not being used for the purpose for which it was designated? In that context, I should like to ask about the discretionary grants from both the Departments of Education and of Health and Social Services that are aimed at helping young people to train. Is it a fact that we have restricted the number of people who are eligible for such grants in Northern Ireland when, if they lived in Great Britain, they would receive such grants, especially for training in physiotherapy, through the Department of Health offices at Blackpool and when, if they came from any other country, they would be entitled to similar grants? If they are eligible for training for a diploma in a university or college in Great Britain and the Northern Ireland Department says, "We have enough here—we don't want any more trained", are those young people being discriminated against, or is the Department finding other means of training them up to their capacity so that they may be useful servants, not only of the community in Northern Ireland, but of the nation as a whole and even further afield?
Finally—I have been pushing on because I realise the time—has the Minister been made aware of the concern about the working of the parliamentary commissioner? It is not so much that he is not doing his job properly, but the regulations under which he works are so restrictive that people are having their cases turned down—not because they do not have a case, but because the commissioner is not entitled to investigate it. If he is a commissioner who looks into maladministration, and if there is maladministration, is it not time that it should be investigated rather than the person concerned being told by the commissioner, "I'm sorry, I cannot look into your case"?

Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for finishing his speech quickly so as to allow me to make one or two comments. Obviously, I cannot make the type of speech that I had been planning. Because of the time restraints, I shall limit myself to two major points. First, I shall explain why I think that our debates on appropriation are important. Secondly, I shall elaborate on a point which I made earlier in an intervention.
The appropriation debates are important because they allow us to discuss bread and butter issues in Northern


Ireland. The material contained under the headings of the appropriation order are usually considered to be the stuff of politics that we deal with in the House day by day for the rest of the United Kingdom. The debates are less dramatic and arouse less emotion than those on the prevention of terrorism. They provide an opportunity to discuss issues affecting people's everyday lives and they should be given priority in our considerations. We should be allowed to develop economic and social policies which create the framework to solve some of the other problems in Northern Ireland.
The debates also allow us to discuss economic policy generally and to co-ordinate the various headings of the order. They are the nearest that we come to a Northern Ireland budget debate, separate from the general Budget provisions. Sometimes we get too bogged down in detail to discuss wider economic considerations.
In discussing economic policy we need to be aware that Northern Ireland is not an island, nor is the island of Ireland an island as wider issues of multi-national economies, such as Bombardier, European social and economic policies and the United Kingdom economy and budgetary position, are involved. They are relevant to our debates and to the policies which could begin to help create a different framework for Northern Ireland.
In an intervention I suggested that the social welfare policies discussed by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and others begin to be appropriate to Northern Ireland. The Government should take them on board, especially as all Northern Ireland Members, whatever their political complexion, are pressing for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggested economic interventionism. If interventionism produces bureaucratic problems, the answer to those problems is to seek devolution and a Bill of Rights. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that that is the constitutional answer and would provide the framework for these important developments.
The answers always seem to me to be democratic Socialist answers. Economic interventionism and social welfare are Socialist elements. The democratic side of Socialism attempts to get people together to control their destiny collectively.

Mr. Roger Stott: We have had a diverse and interesting four-hour debate. Naturally, Northern'Ireland Members have spoken with feeling and a deep understanding of their constituencies about how the appropriation order impinges and should impinge on everyday life. I have listened with interest to practically all the speeches.
My speech will be relatively brief because it is important that the Minister has time to respond to the points made by the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. This is another piece of oratorical brilliance that will have to go on the cutting room floor.
I have two points to make briefly. The first relates to the section of the order dealing with the Department of the Environment and, particularly, the transportation provision. I know that the Minister recently had discussions in Dublin with the Republic's transport Ministers and I should be grateful if he would share his thinking with the House about how he sees cross-border co-operation to develop an integrated transport system.
In the past three years the Government have exhorted British industry and commerce to get into shape to meet the challenges of the internal market of 1992. My party has been critical of the way in which the Government have gone about that, but we agree with them that some strategic thinking is needed on that matter. If we are to take advantage of the huge internal market that will be created in 1992 we must remember that, geographically, Britain, and particularly the island of Ireland, will be on the periphery of Europe. It is, therefore, essential that our transport infrastructure is geared to facilitate the transportation of people, goods and materials to mainland Europe speedily and effectively.
After 1992 both parts of the island of Ireland will be in the internal market. Economic and trading borders will cease to exist and if the Republic and the North of Ireland are not to be marginalised, the integration of their transport systems is vital. The rapid transit freight facilities that will be provided by the Channel tunnel—if it is built—will be a major asset to the United Kingdom. If Britain is to be Ireland's landbridge to the continent decisions must be taken about the Euroroute to provide that link. To ensure that landbridge, the transportation links with the island of Ireland must be strengthened and improved. The rail line from Dublin to Belfast and on to Larne could play a vital role in the transportation of freight. I join the Minister and other hon. Members in their condemnation of terrorist attacks on that line. The paramilitaries should be told in the clearest terms that the Irish and British Governments and the people of Northern and southern Ireland are not intimidated by their actions.
Although I know that the Minister has no responsibility for British Rail, I hope that he has remonstrated with its board in the strongest possible terms about the inconvenience caused to the people of Northern Ireland by the withdrawal of the InterCity service between London and Stranraer. Instead of cutting services, we should be strengthening them.
I understand that British Rail is planning a rail freight terminal near Warrington in the north-west of England. If that is so, the British and Irish Governments should be looking to formulate a strategy to ensure that road, rail and ferry services are integrated so that freight from Dublin and Belfast, via Larne, Holyhead and Liverpool, can be transhipped to mainland Europe via the Channel tunnel speedily and effectively. I note that the Minister is smiling at that prospect and I hope that he and his Department are giving serious consideration to those problems. If the Minister and his counterparts in the South of Ireland fail to do so, Northern Ireland will be relegated to the periphery of economic activity after 1992.
The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Mc(Grady) spoke about housing problems. Yet again, I put on record our appreciation of the work done by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Earlier this year I had a working dinner with members of that executive when we discussed many of the problems that it encounters. No doubt the Minister is aware that the executive's budget for this year has been cut by £13·7 million—the hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned that-and that the new-build programme has been reduced from 1,300 starts to 1,000 starts.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East also outlined the problem of unfitness and disrepair in housing. I would add


the problem of homelessness because if the hon. Gentleman looks at the recent report by Shelter, he will realise that homelessness is a problem in Northern Ireland as well as in the United Kingdom. I fear that that problem will not be solved by the amount of money that the Government are putting into the budget for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
As the Minister only has a quarter of an hour to reply, I shall just mention briefly the question of rural housing. I mentioned it in Question Time last week, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of the real problem with rural housing in Northern Ireland. He must also be aware of the impositions placed upon the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and of the way in which the grant system applies to urban housing there but not to rural housing. If the Minister studied some of the recommendations made by Shelter for the organisation of the grant precedure and the redefinition of what people can get for housing improvements, some amelioration in rural housing in the Province would result.
I apologise to the House for the fact that I have taken only five minutes to reply to what has been said, but I think that the Minister ought to reply to the many significant points made by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am grateful to the 14 hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken for leaving me some time to respond to some of the themes in the debate. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, it is not possible to answer all the questions in detail.
If the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) will allow me, perhaps I can write to him about some of the points that he raised. I shall try to ensure that letters to hon. Members in response to their questions are put in the Library so that they will be available to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) effectively made points which received assent from hon. Members on both sides of the House. When I was west of the Bann yesterday I learned of some of the things said and done by those who have been most affected by the killings in his constituency. I do not want to give a running commentary on the hon. Gentleman's address—that would be totally improper of me—but the dignity and non-retaliation of many of the families of people who have been killed, and of those directly affected, and this applies as much to Belfast as it does to Mid-Ulster, is an inspiration to the rest of us. I am not suggesting that there is not a strong role for the security forces in anticipating and following up terrorist activity afterwards, but the families set an example that the rest of us should follow.
Occasionally, I feel that one of the tragedies is that Northern Ireland has some of the best politicians in the land—they are articulate and persuasive—but occasionally they are totally unable to agree with one another. That is not a criticism of them, but a description of fact. It is important to recognise that the faster we find effective ways—there are a number of them—of reducing the impact of terrorism, the sooner we shall be able to provide

the jobs and the justice that we come into politics to work for in our different ways, with our different insights and with our disagreements.
It is important to realise that there has been spending of some £6,000 million per year—between £3,000 and £4,000 per person—in Northern Ireland. It can be more effectively directed at people's needs if we can overcome or reduce the impact of terrorism. I say to those people who speak out publicly in Northern Ireland that those who manage to speak out against the terrorism that affects both sides of the community and everyone in Northern Ireland are setting an honourable example for the rest of us while the people behind the killers cause as much killing in their own community as they direct at those on the other side.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked about the possibility of helping those with disabilities to find employment and to take advantage of education. It is clearly much better to use money to help people work than to give them money solely on condition that they do nothing worth while. Many of the job training and other schemes are designed to do that. Much of the help for the disabled is designed to help people achieve something rather than sit back and do nothing. I will send the hon. Gentleman a more specific reply. If it is inadequate, he can take up the matter with me again.
It is not possible to undertake all the high priority road schemes at the same time. A deliberate decision was taken in Northern Ireland to spend more on housing and less on roads, because of the housing priorities. Tributes have been paid to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for its remarkable achievements over the years. The money has been used well. It is still necessary for the Housing Executive to find the most efficient way of translating money into better homes, taking account of what the private sector does. I shall not produce the string of statistics foreseen by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), even though he is the Member of Parliament for the area in which my Conservative association is.
The Housing Executive has a gross budget of more than £500 million per year, so it should be possible to find more effective ways of carrying out its work each year. It is important that it should be answerable to the people in the districts. I pay tribute to the Housing Executive's determination to ensure that advice is available to people in both rural and urban areas. Shelter and other organisations have given a general welcome to the way in which the Housing Executive has extended the terms of some of the grants to recognise that owner-occupiers may sometimes live in homes as bad as any that they might otherwise have rented.
There is a determination to ensure that the rural improvement programme and the inter-departmental committee take an across-the-board approach to people's problems. It is no longer any good telling people that their problems do not match the way in which the authorities are organised; we must make sure that we are organised so as to match people's problems.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister prepared to put forward a scheme which, instead of offering repair money, replaces some of those poor rural homes?

Mr. Bottomley: We have not yet been able to agree on what the Housing Executive has put forward on this issue; it is under consideration. It is worth remembering that


many people want to avoid wholesale demolition of historic homes in the countryside. We want to find ways of maintaining our heritage, using replacement grants when that is sensible. I cannot promise that we have found the solution, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, we must seek to move forward.
It is important to remember that the contribution of the private sector to housing has risen from 3,000 homes a year 10 years ago to 7,000 now. That enables the Housing Executive to reduce the number of new homes that it builds while spending more on rehabilitation. Tribute has been paid to some of the Housing Executive's imaginative schemes; the part-ownership schemes, for instance, are greatly appreciated by young people who would otherwise find it difficult to get a place on the ladder.
I shall leave questions about hospitals to my noble Friend in another place and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I should not find it easy to give detailed responses in the remaining seven minutes.
Hon. Members on both sides have stressed the importance of recognising the carers and the need for respite care. The latter idea has been developed in the United Kingdom generally over the past 10 years. The Carers National Association and the Association of Carers, which have wisely joined forces, have done a great deal to help health authorities to provide the sort of help that is of real value, allowing people to remain in their homes for longer while lifting some of the burden from those who give themselves over for decades to the care of the handicapped and the elderly. Those who are rightly concerned with the care of children at least know that parents can usually sign off when their children are 16 or——

Mr. McNamara: Not mine.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman can speak from his family experiences, but I am trying to make this an impersonal debate, picking up the themes that affect many people in every constituency in Northern Ireland. I am sure that health authorities and social services—with the help of people in the community and with the help of professional staff such as doctors, nurses and others, not forgetting the voluntary groups—are doing their best to achieve a spectrum of care opportunities which allow people to do what they can without being broken by the experience.
Industrial development is too important a subject to leave to correspondence. Although some of the announcements do not come to fruition, the figures show that the Industrial Development Board is achieving an ever greater proportion of jobs referred to in the preliminary announcements. That is a tribute to its work. In the past few years, delivery of jobs has been at a higher ratio, leaving aside the Lear Fan business. The IDB is rightly to be congratulated on asking outsiders to examine its performance, and the results of that exercise will be built into its future work.
Questions were raised about LEDU. Experience in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom have shown that small groups of jobs can make a dramatic difference to the earning opportunities of people in rural areas, and I think that there will be a greater concentration on that. I was delighted to note some of the diversifications in South Armagh, where with a little help people put together small businesses which provide employment not

only for the small-scale entrepreneur, but for others around him. I pay tribute to the interest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has paid to that during the past eight years, in the same way as he has encouraged my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) as Minister with responsibility for the economy. It is a partnership to ensure that there is value for money as well as taking the opportunity to put on he public agenda the issues that individual Members of Parliament have discovered from their experiences or those of their constituents.
In the long run, flesh will be put on the development of the rural improvement programme, as well as that for the cities, through tourism. Some 45 million people in the United States know that they are Irish-Americans, Ulster-Scots and so on. About 8 per cent. of US citizens hold passports—unlike in Europe where about 60 per cent. of people hold passports—but that still amounts to some 20 million people and in the next few years we can look forward to more and more of them visiting Ireland. Indeed, I look forward to the Ulster-Canada year in 1991, when I hope that there will be many more tourists from Canada. I think that all those people are now beginning to believe that with their Irish connections they should visit Northern Ireland—and indeed the South—at least once during their lifetime, in the same way as people of Jewish origin visit Jerusalem or those of Islamic faith visit Mecca. If people claim to have a connection with Northern Ireland, they should stand at Navan Fort and look at the twin cathedrals of Armagh or go fishing in Fermanagh. Changes in the approach to tourism will increasingly make people realise what they can gain from visiting Northern Ireland. One of the tragedies of the necessary media attention to bombs, bullets and bigotry is that sometimes it squeezes out other things for which Northern Ireland would otherwise be known.
It is of benefit to the South, too, if terrorism can be extirpated and eliminated and if the conditions that people currently tolerated can be improved. That involves not only the security forces, but the attitudes of the people. They want to feel that jobs and justice are coming.
Perhaps I could finish by talking about links with the South. It is criminal in every sense for the railway line to be blown up. The railway crossing accident shows by mistake what the IRA is trying to do deliberately. The IRA relies on the emergency services, Northern Ireland Railways and the security forces to make sure that bombs placed on the line to Dublin do not explode and cause a crash. During the inquiry into the level crossing crash we may find that everything was not done perfectly. That is the reason for the inquiry and I hope that the information given in the debate will go to the inspector. If anyone has any information, he should put it forward. That is what we in the Department of the Environment will do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bottomley: It is difficult to give way when only 30 seconds remain of the debate, but I will do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister look at that crossing? Will he note that it has inclines on both approaches causing a loss of visibility to car drivers?

Mr. Bottomley: I will make sure that the inspector looks at all the issues.
This has been a useful debate and I hope that the appropriation receives the approval of the House.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (LICENSING)

Resolved,
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Capital Allowances Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates certain enactments relating to capital allowances. The last such consolidation took place in 1968 and the additions and amendments to the law made by each subsequent Finance Act have made a new consolidation exercise necessary. The Bill is pure consolidation; no amendment to the present law is made. It represents a further stage in the continuing programme of consolidation of revenue legislation, and comes just two years after the consolidation of enactments relating to income tax and corporation tax.
I am sure that the House will wish me to acknowledge once again our debt of gratitude to the draftsmen for their considerable achievements in producing the Bill. It has been passed in another place where, in the usual way, it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, which reported that the Bill, as amended by the Committee, is pure consolidation.

Mr. John Fraser: When I saw the Bill and looked at the Irish business, I wished that the House had licensing hours. I shall simply assume that the landlord has called last orders and do no more than congratulate the draftsmen on their splendid work in consolidating these measures and on making life easier for layman and practitioner alike.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: If my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is permitted to speak again, perhaps he will tell us whether he believes that the clause numbers in the Bill will remain the same until final publication. That would help many people who need the Bill for technical purposes. I should also be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend would tell us whether there are to be any further amendments.

The Solicitor General: By leave of the House, may I say that I would not expect any further amendments, but I hope that my hon. Friend will know the answer in about 45 seconds.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

HOUSING

That the draft Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the next sitting of the House on which numbers for defence services or estimates are put down for consideration, Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.) shall apply with the following modifications—

(1) as if the words '(aa) supplementary votes on account for the comng financial year;' were inserted after line 22; and
(2) as if the words `for the coming financial year' in lines 5 and 21 were omitted.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

PETITIONS

Human Embryo

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am very pleased to present formally petitions from the constituents of Norwich, North and from residents of Norwich and Norfolk. They concern the protection of the human embryo. The number of names on the two petitions totals 405. The petitions read:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which, (a) forbids any procedure that involves the purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue, or as subjects of research or experiments, unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned, and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Speech Therapy Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mrs. Ray Michie: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of speech therapy services. While I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will only be able to answer primarily for England and Wales—and I would not have it otherwise, because Scotland is supposed to run its own Health Service—the generality pertains to the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Minister may be aware that my interest in the provision of speech therapy services stems from my membership of the College of Speech Therapists, and I have the honour to be one of its vice-presidents. Prior to entering the House, I was a practising speech therapist, and managed the service for the Argyll and Clyde health board.
The organisation of speech therapy services has evolved over the years. Prior to 1974 they were managed by local health and education authorities. After 1974, they came under the auspices of the National Health Service. That was a good move, because it provided an opportunity to develop a comprehensive and integrated service for both NHS patients and education departments. The latter was of prime importance to the thousands of children requiring help with their speech.
Between 1974 and 1980, speech therapy managers developed the service in each health authority or health board. Some had greater success than others, depending on available resources. But the model was there for allowing the employment and deployment of speech therapy manpower offering a variety of expertise and specialisms to meet the large number of different communication problems. They ranged from learning difficulties and stammering to patients suffering from strokes, head injuries, cleft palates, and Parkinson's disease, to name but a few examples.
The model also provided wide clinical opportunities for student training and the sharing of expensive equipment. Most important of all, it encouraged a team approach throughout an area, providing valuable support, in particular, to speech therapists who have to work on their own. Many still do so, particularly in rural areas.
Unfortunately, since 1980, the profession has been caught up in a series of NHS reorganisations and restructurings that have done nothing for continuity. On the contrary, they have led once again to fragmentation of management and of provision. No sooner had people adapted to one restructuring and tried to manage with it than they found themselves being overtaken by yet another.
I stress that this is a small profession. Even fully staffed, it will always be small in the context of the large numbers of people employed in the Health Service. It is therefore not sensible or cost-effective, nor is it an indication of good man or woman management, to allow the profession to be broken up into little bits and pieces at unit, sub-unit or locality level, each trying to do its own thing and still service the wide range of problems. It really is a very narrow and restricted outlook that leads to the belief that every service and profession in the National Health Service can or should be delivered in the same way.
The results of the most recent research—carried out by Enderby and Davies, and funded by the Department of Health—were published in the December 1989 issue of the "British Journal of Disorders of Communication." That research concerned, in the first place, the size of the speech and language impairment problem. The results indicated that in the United Kingdom there are 2·.3 million people with a speech and/or language disorder. Of those, 800,000 have a severe communication difficulty; in other words, they have difficulty in making themselves understood by anyone other than their immediate family. Then there are 1·5 million who have a moderate communication disorder—that is, a speech and/or language problem that is noticeable to the lay person.
Enderby and Davies estimate that, under present patterns of speech therapy provision, 26 qualified speech therapists may be required per 100,000 of the population. This is four times as many therapists as are currently employed. There has certainly been growth in the numbers and service since 1972—most of it took place between 1974 and 1980—but the expansion has not kept pace with the need and with the realisation of what a comparatively young profession can do. The Minister will say that extra money has been put into the service, and that there has been an increase in the number of therapists. I appreciate that, but it does not meet the reality of the situation.
Services have developed very patchily. For example, Government figures indicate a variation in provision from 22 speech therapists per 100,000 in Hampstead to two per 100,000 in Hereford—to say nothing of the Greater Glasgow health board area, where 18 speech therapy posts have been frozen or are unfilled because of financial constraints. The average figure is 5·9 therapists per 100,000 people: no improvement on the Quirk report, which, in 1972, almost 20 years ago—on figures based on hospitals alone—suggested that it was necessary to have six speech therapists per 100,000 of the population.
Of course, recruitment and retention of staff are of fundamental importance. Success will depend to a large extent on the provision of decent salaries. The present salaries do not reflect the qualifications, knowledge, expertise and dedication of speech therapists. They remain significantly lower than those of other professionals requiring similar qualifications. I often wonder whether this is because 98 per cent. of the people in the profession are female. Of course, in so many occupations in this country females have traditionally been low paid. On 1 December 1989, a speech therapist wrote to me, stating:
I hope we achieve something for the young therapists—too late for me at the end of my career.
I qualified in 1956 and after 33 years earn the princely sum—£10,974!! Good job I have a husband!!
What about all the therapists who cannot call on their husbands for help?
It is vital to retain an open self-referral system. That does not mean writing a blank cheque. The system is already restricted by the number of therapists available and the size of the budget allocated. Sadly, there is still a great deal of ignorance, which is not confined to the general public but is evident also in the medical profession where, if it were left to people in the profession to refer, many patients would be missed or ignored. That will continue unless the therapist can continue accepting open referrals and retains the right to assess, treat and discharge

his or her patients. Too often those who think that they should refer patients to speech therapists say, "Oh, they will grow out of it", or, "Nothing can be done."
I am deeply worried about a proposal to meet the need on the cheap by introducing a three-tier profession. It will not work and will mean a downgrading of the profession and the service available. I shall try to explain why. At present, there is a speech therapy helper or assistant grade, but it has never been successful on an extensive basis because there are not enough qualified therapists to supervise. An assistant tends to be allocated to a speech therapist who works at a number of different locations, such as schools and health centres, and if that therapist leaves the post and it is not filled the assistant is on her own and is unable to work because there is no direction or supervision. One could argue that he or she could be deployed elsewhere, but that is unlikely to happen if the management of the service has been fragmented. To introduce a second tier of therapists, half-trained for 18 months, is certainly not the answer. I know that schools and education authorities in particular have already said that they will not accept second best for their children.
I wonder whether the Minister knows that increased secretarial help would go a considerable way towards freeing therapists to concentrate almost entirely on hands-on patient and client care. That option should be seriously considered before we travel down the dead-end road of a second tier. Whatever plans are afoot, I hope that the Minister will first consult and involve those responsible in the College of Speech Therapists. They are more than willing to help. With respect, all the civil servants in the world, excellent as they may be, cannot and should not be asked to come up with a solution, because they do not know what happens.
I am aware that members of the college met the Minister of State on 28 February and that there are to be further meetings with Department of Health officials in April. The college officials are delighted that these meetings are taking place.
The achievement of a better service must surely be treated as a separate exercise because the NHS reforms and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, do not give the answer. Speech therapy is part of the National Health Service, but which reform will increase the number of therapists? And precisely which reform will equalise the service to patients throughout the country or see to it that speech therapists are paid a salary that reflects their qualifications and expertise so that health authorities can attract and recruit women and men to the profession and retain them once they are there?
Sometimes I think that little will be achieved until there is greater understanding of the problem among the general public. The profession has certainly tried to do something about that—for example, by its excellent "Speak Week" last week, which publicised the problems of communication handicapped people.
There needs to be greater understanding by the Government and the health authorities, too, because there remains a great deal of ignorance. Ministers keep saying that the level of speech therapy service to be provided will, as now, be a matter for determination by the district health authorities, in the light of local circumstances and of their assessment of priorities and available resources. But too often health authorities and health boards tend to treat speech therapy as a Cinderella service that is of no great


importance because the inability to communicate is not a life-threatening disorder. Matters will not improve unless the Government demand of the health authorities that they face up to their responsibilities to the communication handicapped and provide a decent service.
No one except those affected can fully appreciate the terrible sense of isolation—the deep psychological trauma—of those who have lost the ability to communicate. No one can understand the embarrassment and turning in on themselves and hurt—what has been described by many patients as an inner death—that patients suffer when they can no longer talk even to their own families. A speech and language problem is not visible to the world outside. Dysphasia is not supported by a zimmer; a stammer is not held in a sling; a laryngectomy is not in a plaster cast.
I am grateful to the Minister for having listened. I dare to say that I am optimistic that he will have a greater understanding of the needs of the communication impaired and the speech therapy profession than any of his predecessors.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is an expert in the field, having been a practising speech therapist, on initiating the debate. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Lady if my voice is not what it normally should be.
This has been a valuable debate. Not only has it provided a valuable education for me—there is nothing like an Adjournment debate to focus one's attention and encourage one to learn what one can with the benefit of advice from officials—but it has given the Government the opportunity to put on record for the first time for a number of years the valuable contribution that speech therapists make. It is not a Cinderella service; it is an important service.
I would not dissociate myself from the hon. Lady's estimate of the number of people with a communication problem. She said that the figure was 2·3 million, of whom perhaps 800,000 suffer some form of severe disability. That is the order of magnitude of the problem. That is very much greater than the estimate that was made 20 years ago by the Quirk committee. The service is important, and it is increasingly recognised by the Department of Health and by the NHS.
I want briefly to refer to the expansion in the service over the past 10 years. The hon. Lady reminded the House that there has been an expansion. The record should show that expenditure on the speech therapy service in England has increased by more than 120 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is a phenomenal increase. Between 1979 and 1988, the number of speech therapists employed in England increased by 80 per cent., and for Great Britain as a whole by 65 per cent. Those are impressive numbers, although I accept the thrust of the hon. Lady's argument that more needs to be done.
Since 1979, speech therapists have benefited from an increase in pay of 20 per cent. in real terms. It is interesting to note that the profession has recently accepted a 9 per cent. pay settlement for the 18-month period from 1 April 1989 to 30 September 1990. I appreciate the hon. Lady's

comments about that increase in relation to other professions, but it includes the benefit of that 9 per cent. pay rise.
I assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to a proper review of the grading structure for speech therapists towards the end of the year. We have brought that review forward at the request of the profession, and we are committed to it. I understand that, between 1989 and 1990, regional health authority plans in England suggest that the profession will be expanded by a further 5 per cent.
So much for the past. The hon. Lady rightly said that a recent study by Enderby and Davies recommended the need for a fourfold expansion of the service. She poured a little cold water on the idea of a three-tier profession, and I can understand why she did so. However, it is important for the House to appreciate that demographic factors alone will make it very difficult for us to expand the service to the extent to which she referred, a fourfold increase.
There are two things that we can and should do in relation to the expansion of the profession. First, to meet the hon. Lady's point about clerical assistance, there is a good case for expanding the number of assistants available to qualified speech therapists. There were only 40 assistants available at the most recent count, which I believe was in 1987. We can and should expand the use of assistants to relieve some of the relatively mundane and clerical tasks of the profession.
Secondly, we should discuss further with the College of Speech Therapists the introduction of another grade, perhaps less qualified than the fully qualified speech therapist, to provide appropriate assistance for the qualified members of the profession. We must be flexible in our approach, because we must further expand the service, and, without looking at other ways of increasing numbers, we shall not succeed as we all wish.
I now consider the main burden of the hon. Lady's comments, which concern the NHS reforms and the White Paper. The hon. Lady is concerned about the fragmentation of the profession. Those fears were repeated when representatives of the profession recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I do not share those concerns because we are placing on district health authorities the responsibility to plan for all aspects of the health care needs of all who live within the district boundary, and that includes the need for speech therapy.
For the first time we have placed on health authorities a clear responsibility to plan. Incidentally, we have preserved the right to local access where NHS trusts might be established. Speech therapy, like many other services, can—and I am sure will—be designated as core, or necessary, services for a local community and therefore must be provided by NHS trusts.
In most cases, when preparing a contract for speech therapy, a district health authority will be able to deal with speech therapists—the professional group to the district—as a whole. From consultations with occupational therapists, I am well aware of the fears about fragmentation. I made it plain in another debate that there is no reason for such fears. The professional group within the district can and should remain intact. It seems only sensible that contracts written by the purchasers of health care should respect that integration and cohesion necessary for planning, recruitment, morale and retention in the writing of contracts.
The hon. Lady referred to open referral. I assure her that we have no plans to change that. The figures show that 40 per cent. of referrals come from consultants or GPs, but the majority come from those working in the community such as health visitors, local education authorities or from individuals referring themselves for treatment. We have no plans to change that. Open referral is an important principle that should and will remain.
We have no plans to cloud or affect the clinical autonomy of the profession and the professional group operating within a particular district health authority. It is important that that should be maintained. Very often, professional groups are concerned that there is nothing specifically in the White Paper, "Working for Patients", referring to them, so they fear that they are being neglected or forgotten. The White Paper was all about introducing a new structure for the organisation of health care. It

contained no reference to speech therapists, and the same is true for many other professional groups, but I can offer the hon. Lady two assurances.
First, nothing in the White Paper would prejudice the provision of services by speech therapists. They are an important group, their services are needed and they will expand. Secondly, the hon. Lady laid great stress on consultation. I assure her that the Department will work closely with the College of Speech Therapists in planning the future expansion and provision of services.
It is our intention to work in true partnership and co-operation with that most important professional body to achieve what the hon. Lady and the Government seek to achieve—the expansion of the service within available resources and within the constraints of the demographic trough and to provide the best quality of speech therapy services for the greatest number of people.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.